Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan - 02072018 PDF

View
of Mt Pisgah’s western Slope, April 1972

Proposed
Habitat Management Plan
Howard Buford Recreation Area
February 7, 2018

View of Mt Pisgah’s western Slope, April 2017

Prepared by Lane County Parks Division, Public Works Department

In partnership with Friends of Buford Park & Mt. Pisgah and Mount Pisgah Arboretum
Habitat Management Plan
Prepared by:
Lane County Parks Division

3040 Delta Highway North
Eugene, Oregon 97408
Friends of Buford Park & Mt. Pisgah

P.O. Box 5266
Mount Pisgah Arboretum

34901 Frank Parrish Rd.
February 7, 2018
Cover photo: Western Slope of Mount Pisgah as viewed in April of 1972 and 2017.
Photo by Lane County Parks Divison staff.
Acknowledgements

Board of County Commissioners

Lane County Parks Advisory Committee

Buford Park Habitat Management Plan Technical Advisory Group
Ed Alverson, The Nature Conservancy
Paul Hoobyar, Watersheds Inc. (TAG Facilitator)
Sandra Koike, Project intern
Tom LoCascio, Mount Pisgah Arboretum
Glenn Miller, Oregon Department of Agriculture
Bruce Newhouse, Friends of Buford Park & Mt. Pisgah
Roberta Swift and Garrett Dorsey, US Army Corps of Engineers
Ben Tilley, Bonneville Power Administration
Greg Wagenblast, Oregon Dept. of Forestry
Jeff Ziller, Kelly Reis, Erik Moberly, Brian Wolfer, and Chris Yee, Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife

Lane County Public Works and Parks Division
Ed Alverson
Charlie Conrad
Chad Hoffman
Dan Hurley
Fraser MacDonald
John Moriarty
Mike Russell

Friends of Buford Park & Mt. Pisgah
Jason Blazar
Jeff Krueger
Chris Orsinger

Mount Pisgah Arboretum
Brad van Appel
Rich Kelly

Photos provided by:
Ed Alverson, Jason Blazar, Kate Blazar,
Jeff Krueger, Chris Orsinger, Jim Reed.

Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Conservation Vision ............................................................................................................................ 2
1.2 Management Goals ............................................................................................................................ 2
1.3 Moving Forward ................................................................................................................................. 3
1.4 Stakeholder Groups ............................................................................................................................ 3
1.5 The Planning Process .......................................................................................................................... 4
1.6 Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 4
1.7 Public Input ........................................................................................................................................ 6
1.8 Chapter 1 References ..................................................................................................................... 6
Chapter 2: Purpose & Need .................................................................................................................. 7
2.1 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Regional Context: Mount Pisgah’s Importance .................................................................................. 7
2.3 Rare Habitats at HBRA ........................................................................................................................ 7
2.4 Managing Conservation Targets & Fire Risk in a Changing Climate ................................................... 9
2.5 Relationship to Previous Plans ........................................................................................................... 9
2.5.1 HBRA Master Plan (1994) ............................................................................................................ 9
2.5.2 Confluence of Coast and Middle Forks Willamette River Project Area – Alternatives Team
Recommendation (1997) .................................................................................................................... 10
2.5.3 South Meadow Management Plan (2002) ................................................................................ 10
2.5.4 Rivers to Ridges Open Space Study (2003) ................................................................................ 11
2.5.5 Oregon Conservation Strategy (2006, updated in 2016) ........................................................... 11
2.5.6 Willamette River Open Space Vision (2010) .............................................................................. 12
2.5.7 Lane County Parks and Open Space Master Plan (1981) and Lane County Parks Master Plan
(revision in development) .................................................................................................................. 13
2.5.8 Other Plans and Assessments ................................................................................................... 13
2.6 Chapter 2 References ................................................................................................................... 14
Chapter 3: Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 15
3.1 The Conservation Action Planning Process ...................................................................................... 15
3.1.1 Why This Tool Was Selected ..................................................................................................... 15
3.1.2 Other Conservation Action Plans developed in Western Oregon ............................................. 15
3.2 Planning Process Overview .............................................................................................................. 16
3.2.1 Technical Advisory Group .......................................................................................................... 16
3.2.2 The Role of Friends of Buford Park & Mt. Pisgah ...................................................................... 17
3.3 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................................... 18
3.3.1 Lane County Technical Review .................................................................................................. 18
3.3.2 Habitat Management Plan, Version 2 ....................................................................................... 18
3.3.3 The Planning Process Ahead ...................................................................................................... 19
Chapter 4: Conservation Vision, Conservation Targets, and Other Habitats ........................................ 21
4.1 Conservation Vision Statement ........................................................................................................ 21
4.2 Conservation targets ........................................................................................................................ 21
4.2.1 Upland prairie and savanna ....................................................................................................... 22
4.2.2 Oregon Vesper Sparrow ............................................................................................................ 23
4.2.3 Oak Woodland ........................................................................................................................... 24
4.2.4 Wetland Prairie ......................................................................................................................... 25
4.2.5 Bradshaw’s lomatium ................................................................................................................ 25
4.2.6 Buckbrush chaparral .................................................................................................................. 26
4.2.7 Willamette riparian systems and associated floodplain ............................................................ 27
4.2.8 Creeks and Streams ................................................................................................................... 28
............................................................................................................................................................ 28
............................................................................................................................................................ 28
4.2.9 Visitor Experience ...................................................................................................................... 29
4.2.10 Other Habitats ......................................................................................................................... 29
4.3 Projected Increase in Extent of Focal Conservation Target Habitats and Resources ................... 31
Chapter 5: Viability and Threats to the Conservation Targets ............................................................. 35
5.1 Assessing the Viability of Each Conservation Target ........................................................................ 35
5.2 Assessing Threats to Each Conservation Target ............................................................................... 35
Chapter 6: Goals and Strategies .......................................................................................................... 43
Chapter 7: Enhancing Visitor Experience While Managing Habitats .................................................... 51
7.1 Recreational and Educational Values of Healthy Native Habitats .................................................... 51
7.2 Balancing Visitor experience with Habitat Management ................................................................. 52
7.2.1 Suitable locations for interpretive signage ................................................................................ 52
7.2.2 Suitable locations for benches and view points ........................................................................ 53
7.2.3 Dogs On Leash ........................................................................................................................... 53
7.3 Habitat Stewardship Zones .............................................................................................................. 54
7.4 Brief Descriptions of Stewardship Zones .......................................................................................... 56
Chapter 8: Fire as a Management Tool ............................................................................................... 59
8.1 The Historic Role of Fire in Chaparral, Prairie, Savanna, & Woodland Habitats ............................... 59
8.1.1 Historic Climate Variations ........................................................................................................ 59
8.1.2 Observations of Early Explorers................................................................................................. 59
8.1.3 Cultural Use of Fire as a Management Tool .............................................................................. 60
8.1.4 Ecological Fire as a Habitat Management Tool ........................................................................ 60
8.1.5 Ecological benefits of frequent low intensity fire ...................................................................... 61
8.1.6 Potential drawbacks to ecological burning ............................................................................... 62
8.1.7 Wildfire versus ecological burning: ........................................................................................... 62
8.2 Ecological Burn Strategy ................................................................................................................... 63
8.2.1 Implement ecological burns annually in accord with habitat management plan ..................... 63
8.2.2 Factors to consider when planning ecological burns: ............................................................... 64
Chapter 9: Management of Non-Native Invasive Species .................................................................... 67
9.1 What is a Non-Native Invasive Species? ........................................................................................... 67
9.2 Non-Native Species at HBRA ............................................................................................................ 67
9.3 Problematic Native Species .............................................................................................................. 68
9.4 Management of Invasive Non-Native Species in the HBRA .............................................................. 68
9.5 Integrated Pest Management .......................................................................................................... 68
9.6 Early Detection and Rapid Response: Prevention and Suppression of “New” Invasive Species ...... 69
9.7 Invasive Species Lists ........................................................................................................................ 70
Chapter 10: Stewardship Projects to Protect and Enhance Conservation Targets ................................ 75
Chapter 11: Best Management Practices and Stewardship Tool Box ................................................... 83
11.1 Use of the Best Management Practices ......................................................................................... 83
11.2 Professional Judgment ................................................................................................................... 83
11.3 Habitat Advisory Team (HAT) ......................................................................................................... 84
11.4 Training ........................................................................................................................................... 84
11.5 Documentation and Reporting ....................................................................................................... 84
11.6 Best Management Practices by Category ....................................................................................... 85
11.6.1 Trails (TR) ................................................................................................................................. 85
11.6.2 Stormwater Management ....................................................................................................... 87
11.6.3 Parking Areas and Access Roads (PR) ...................................................................................... 88
11.6.4 Utility Corridors (BPA powerlines, natural gas lines, EPUD powerlines) (UC) ......................... 88
11.6.5 Ecological Tree Removal (for habitat restoration purposes) (ER) ........................................... 89
11.7 HBRA Stewardship Zones ............................................................................................................... 90
11.8 Stewardship Toolbox ...................................................................................................................... 92
11.8.1 Stewardship, Site Preparation and Invasive Management Methods ...................................... 92
11.8.2 Equipment Cleaning Guidelines .............................................................................................. 92
11.8.3 Invasive Plant Management Methods ..................................................................................... 92
11.9 Chapter 11 References ............................................................................................................... 94
Chapter 12: Monitoring and Adaptive Management ........................................................................... 95
12.1 What is Adaptive Management? .................................................................................................... 95
12.2 Funding for Monitoring .................................................................................................................. 96
12.3 Monitoring Conservation Targets ................................................................................................... 96
12.4 Monitoring Key Ecological Attributes ............................................................................................. 96
12.5 Monitoring Threats ........................................................................................................................ 97
12.6 HBRA Species Inventory/Monitoring .............................................................................................. 97
12.7 Project Effectiveness Monitoring ................................................................................................... 97
12.8 Chapter 12 References ............................................................................................................... 97

Figures
• Figure 2-1: Change in Willamette Valley Strategy Habitats 1850 vs. 2004 .................................................... 8
• Figure 3-1: HBRA Habitat Management Plan Technical Advisory Group ..................................................... 16
• Figure 3-2: Friends of Buford Park & Mt. Pisgah Stewardship Technical Advisory Committee .................... 17
• Figure 4-1: Focal Conservation Target or Other Habitat Percent Change 2008-2035 .................................. 31
• Figure 4-2: HBRA Existing Condition circa 2008 Map ................................................................................... 33
• Figure 4-3: Desired Future Conditions in the HBRA circa 2035 .................................................................... 34
• Figure 5-1: Viability of Conservation Targets Table ...................................................................................... 36
• Figure 5-2: Summary of Threats Table ......................................................................................................... 41
• Figure 7-1: HBRA Stewardship Zones Map ................................................................................................... 55
• Figure 9-1: Non-Native Invasive Plants Known to Occur in the HBRA .......................................................... 70
• Figure 9-2: Non-Native Invasive Plants Not Currently Know to Occur at the BBRA (Watch List) ................. 72
• Figure 9-3: Known Non-Native Animals (A Partial List) ............................................................................... 73
• Figure 10-1: Implementation Schedule ........................................................................................................ 76
• Figure 12-1: Adaptive Management Diagram .............................................................................................. 95

Appendices
A. Glossary
B. Bibliography
C. Historic Vegetation and Land Use
D. Aerial Imagery Archive
E. Park Wide and Management Unit Specific Work Plans
Chapter 1: Executive Summary

The Habitat Management Plan for Lane County’s Howard Buford Recreation Area (Plan) is designed to
guide Lane County land managers, park stakeholders, agency partners, and interested park users in
managing and sustaining the 2,215-acre Howard Buford Recreation Area’s valuable aesthetic and natural
resources and their enjoyment by the public.

This visionary document identifies high priority goals and strategies for application of available
resources, and a focus for collaborative partnerships and future grant writing efforts. With this Plan in
hand, park managers, partner agencies, and volunteer groups can work together more effectively to
secure funding to sustain the park’s diverse habitats, for the public to enjoy long into the future.

Howard Buford Recreation Area (HBRA) and the greater Middle Fork-Coast Fork Willamette confluence-
area is recognized in the 2006 Oregon Conservation Strategy, as well as the 2016 revision, as a
Conservation Opportunity Area—a location “that provide(s) good opportunities to address the
conservation needs of high-priority habitats and species” (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,
2006). More than 1,000 acres of prairie, savanna, and oak woodland are found within HBRA. With only
about two percent of the Willamette Valley’s original prairie and savanna and 10 percent of floodplain
forest habitat remaining, HBRA is home to some of the largest remnants of these habitat types in public
ownership. . In 2010, The Nature Conservancy purchased more than 1,200 acres of similar habitat
immediately adjacent to HBRA (the preserve was later expanded to 1305 acres). This presents
extraordinary new opportunities for restoration and protection of significant contiguous acreage of
these rare habitats. A fundamental challenge of park management in HBRA is to balance the
recreational needs of park visitors with the conservation needs of plants and wildlife—some of which
are listed as rare, threatened, or endangered.
Each year, an estimated 400,000 people visit HBRA to enjoy its diverse natural beauty.
Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 1

1.1 Conservation Vision
The planning process and associated public input resulted in the creation of the following Conservation
Vision for Howard Buford Recreation Area:

Conservation Vision for Howard Buford Recreation Area
The Howard Buford Recreation Area will be managed to conserve and restore prairie, savanna,
woodland, forest, and river habitats in ways that enhance visitor experience, compatible recreation and
educational uses described in the HBRA Master Plan (1994).

The uplands shall sustain increasingly rare Willamette Valley habitat types including a mosaic of open
prairie, savanna, and oak woodland in portions of the park where these habitat types occurred
historically. Conifer and mixed forest shall be retained and enhanced in upland portions of HBRA,
particularly in portions of the park that historically supported forest conditions. The lowlands shall
sustain healthy riparian (streamside) and aquatic habitats and processes. These native habitats shall
conserve common and rare native
plants and animals, including
federally and state-listed threatened
and endangered species.

Habitat restoration shall provide
significant increases in quality and/or
extent of priority habitat to support a
diversity of wildlife species,
particularly those that were
historically more prevalent
throughout the Willamette Valley.
Restoration will also lessen the threat
of severe wildfire through reduction
of dense, brushy fuels in prairie,
savanna, and oak woodland habitats

1.2 Management Goals
Fifteen management goals and associated strategies were developed to provide measurable milestones
on the road to achieving the Conservation Vision. Refer to Chapter 6 for a complete list of the strategies
and projects associated with each goal, as well as a brief description of the conservation targets each
goal is designed to address.

• GOAL 1: Provide a safe and positive visitor experience in Howard Buford Recreation Area.

• GOAL 2: Educate park users about the unique natural values that make the HBRA and the broader
Mount Pisgah area a priority for conservation.

• GOAL 3: Maintain and improve the park’s trail system to minimize ecological impacts while
providing views of and access to HBRA’s diverse habitats.

• GOAL 4: Minimize adverse impacts of park management on conservation targets.

• GOAL 5: Restore and enhance prairie, savanna and oak woodland habitats by reducing encroaching
woody vegetation.

• GOAL 6: Achieve significant restoration of prairie and savanna, oak woodland, and wet prairie
habitats in HBRA.

• GOAL 7: Achieve significant restoration of chaparral habitat in HBRA.

• GOAL 8: Manage for diverse native plant communities within each conservation target habitat.

• GOAL 9: Increase the size of wet prairie habitat patches.

• GOAL 10: Locate and, to the extent feasible, reduce populations of feral or harmful non-native
animal species impacting each conservation target.

• GOAL 11: Locate and reduce the presence of habitat-modifying, non-native plant species within
each conservation target habitat.

• GOAL 12: Remove fish passage barriers from the lower mile of creeks and streams in HBRA that flow
into the Coast Fork of the Willamette River.

• GOAL 13: Improve ecological health of creeks and streams.

• GOAL 14: Improve ecological health of riparian floodplain habitats.

• GOAL 15: Manage habitats in the North Bottomlands Stewardship Zone to be mutually compatible
with recreational activities identified in the 1994 HBRA Master Plan and the recommendations of
the Large Events Task Force (2015).

1.3 Moving Forward
Effective partnerships have been a key feature of the management of the Howard Buford Recreation
Area since the park was established in 1972. Achieving the ambitious vision set forth in this Plan will
require these partnerships to grow broader and deeper. The Plan provides the basis for that growth, and
a solid framework for Lane County Parks and its partners to pursue the financial resources necessary for
successful implementation.

1.4 Stakeholder Groups
At the outset of the planning process, HBRA stakeholders, including the Mount Pisgah Arboretum and
the Lane County Sheriff’s Mounted Posse, were invited to briefings on the project and to public input
sessions. These groups are integral to the ongoing operation of HBRA.

Mount Pisgah Arboretum, a non-profit organization, is a 209-acre, living tree museum on the west slope
of Mount Pisgah within HBRA. The Arboretum operates through a 50-year lease with Lane County,
which was initially established in 1973, and is responsible for habitat management within the Arboretum
Stewardship Zone (see chapter 7). The primary purpose of Mount Pisgah Arboretum is nature education.
Habitat management efforts are aimed at providing dynamic outdoor classrooms for teaching about
local ecology. The Arboretum offers a wide range of both structured educational programs and informal
learning opportunities for visitors of all ages, and is currently developing a series of interactive nature
exhibits.

The Lane County Sheriff’s Mounted Posse was established in 1941, and was originally created to serve
as both a community service group, and to assist the Sheriff, such as with search and rescue efforts. The
posse operates the horse arena located in the North Bottomlands in HBRA as a training facility and hosts
a series of regular events, and schedules regular trail rides to patrol park trails.

The mission of the Friends of Buford Park and Mt. Pisgah (the Friends), founded in 1989, is to protect
and enhance native ecosystems and compatible recreation in the Mt. Pisgah area. The Friends is a
501(c)3 non-profit organization working to conserve the Mt. Pisgah area’s incredible botanical, wildlife
and recreational values. The Friends mobilizes funding, scientific expertise and volunteers to improve
the botanical, fish, wildlife and recreational resources throughout the 4,700 acre greater Mt. Pisgah
area.

The Friends is a separate organization distinct from the Mount Pisgah Arboretum, working to care for
the 2,100 acres in Buford Park outside of the Arboretum Stewardship. Though separate organizations,
together they help care for Buford Park’s natural and recreational values in partnership with Lane
County, the landowner.

1.5 The Planning Process
The Plan was developed using the Conservation Action Planning process, or CAP. The CAP methodology
is a science-based planning analysis developed by The Nature Conservancy and other land managers.
The CAP process is an analytical methodology that allows a team of technical experts from diverse
disciplines to work through a series of analytical steps that result in a set of priority strategies and
actions to achieve conservation goals.

1.6 Methodology
Consistent with the CAP methodology, the Friends, with Lane County assistance, convened an inter-
agency Technical Advisory Group (TAG) with diverse expertise to work through the planning process.
The TAG held seven facilitated meetings to develop and review detailed conservation planning
information. The TAG developed specific “conservation targets” for HBRA. Conservation targets are
aspects of biodiversity or related habitat management focus. Conservation Targets in this plan include
priority ecological communities or habitat types that are found within HBRA, as well as endangered,
threatened, or at-risk native plant and animal species. Conservation targets are utilized in the planning
process to guide development and analysis of conservation strategies in HBRA.

From the overall list of conservation targets identified for HBRA, the TAG selected nine targets as “focal
conservation targets”. These are chosen to represent the full array of biodiversity and habitat
management priorities found in a project area. The focal conservation targets represent 1) habitat types
identified as important for conservation within the Oregon Conservation Strategy for the Willamette
Valley Ecoregion; 2) habitats that provide important aquatic, wetland, and upland ecological functions;
3) federally listed species or species petitioned for listing; and 4) public uses that benefit from a
landscape rich in native biodiversity. In the planning process, the focal targets are the basis for setting
goals, carrying out conservation actions, and measuring conservation effectiveness.

The focal targets include six habitats, one federally endangered plant, one rare bird and, to integrate
and value compatible recreation, "visitor experience." The specific focal conservation targets are:

• Upland prairie and savanna
• Oak woodland
• Wet prairie
• Bradshaw’s lomatium (Lomatium bradshawii)
• Buckbrush chaparral
• Willamette riparian systems and associated floodplain
• Creeks and streams
• Oregon Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus affinis)
• Visitor experience

Additional “nested targets” are identified in Chapter 4 of this document. Nested targets are rare or at-
risk species or ecological communities whose conservation needs are similar to one or more focal
conservation targets. It is expected that these species and communities of interest will benefit from
strategies that address focal targets. Recognition of nested targets helps to ensure that strategies
implemented to benefit focal targets also provide a wider range of benefits to HBRA’s natural features.

As part of the CAP methodology, the "viability" of and "threats" to the focal targets were assessed in
order to establish clear goals and strategies (Chapter 6) for the desired future conditions for each target.
Viability is defined as the status or health of a plant or animal species or habitat type. Viability is an
indication of the ability of a conservation target to withstand or recover from disturbances or other
alterations, and thus to persist in to the long term future. Threats are factors that directly or indirectly
degrade or reduce the health of a conservation target. Identifying the important threats to conservation
targets is a key step toward identifying effective conservation strategies.

Once the 15 management goals were identified, the process developed stewardship project
recommendations, along with recommended best management practices and a “Stewardship Tool Box”
(Chapters 10 and 11). The Plan calls for monitoring and adaptive management (Chapter 12) so that
implementation actions may be adjusted to changing conditions and emerging information.

This plan has undergone extensive review and refinement. The Lane County Public Works Department
performed a technical review of an early draft of the Plan from in 2011. In 2012, habitat planning was
postponed due to insufficient funding. In 2015, Lane County resumed the planning process,
collaborating with Friends of Buford Park & Mt. Pisgah to complete the Plan. Version 2 of the Plan was
released for public review and comment on May 6, 2016, and comments were received until July 31,
2016. The current version of the Plan, Version 3, reflects the input provided by the public and
stakeholders during this public review process. The Lane County Parks Advisory Committee (PAC) will
review this draft and may recommend that the Plan be approved by the Lane County Board of
Commissioners.

This Plan identifies strategies for habitat management within to effectively guide the use of funding and
labor on the part of Lane County and partners within HBRA. The work plan identified in Chapter 10
constitutes a set of tasks to support the continued viability of the conservation targets present at HBRA.
Maps showing desired future habitat conditions are intended to provide a template for achieving the
conservation vision for HBRA. However, the maps do not constitute a financial commitment to

implementing the necessary habitat improvements on a fixed timeline. Nor are the maps intended to
describe future habitat conditions in any given portion of the park with certainty, given the financial and
ecological variables that guide any course of habitat restoration. As such, this document is intended to
be a technical document in support of administrative actions, and is not a land use planning document.

1.7 Public Input
During the planning process, Lane County, the TAG and Friends of Buford Park & Mt. Pisgah collaborated
to:
• Host two public workshops: March 19, 2009 and June 2, 2009,
• Publish displays and informational materials on the internet,
• Obtain a major article in The Register-Guard (March 27, 2009),
• Host an informational booth at the Mount Pisgah Wildflower Festival in 2009, and
• Host two stakeholder meetings, Nov 12, 2008 and Sept 3, 2009.

During 2016 and 2017, Lane County solicited comments through:
• Stakeholder meetings,
• Outreach to the general public, park neighbors and other stakeholders through website
postings; flyers at park kiosks; print, TV, and radio stories in May 2016,
• An informational booth at the May 19th 2016 Mount Pisgah Wildflower Festival,
• Three public park tours in June 2016, two public tours in 2017 (July and August respectively),
• An online survey to which there were 51 respondents
• A public open house at Harris Hall on May 25th to provide information and solicit public
feedback,
• Review by members of the inter-agency Technical Advisory Group, which met on May 5, 2016,
• Review by Parks Advisory Committee, including a public comment opportunity,
• A public open house to showcase the draft Plan and highlight in what ways public comment
shaped the final document, and
• Review and approval by Lane County Board of Commissioners, including additional
opportunities for public comment.

1.8 Chapter 1 References

• Lane County Parks Division and Cameron & McCarthy Landscape Architects. 1994. Howard
Buford Recreation Area Master Plan. Lane County Parks, Eugene, Oregon.
• Lane County Large Events Task Force. 2015. - Findings and Recommendations of the Lane
County Large Events Task Force. Lane County Parks, Eugene, Oregon.
• Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006 and 2016. Oregon Conservation Strategy. 9, 11,
234-245.

Chapter 2: Purpose & Need

2.1 Purpose
The purpose of this Plan is for Lane County and its partner agencies to identify goals, strategies and
projects to effectively conserve a diversity of native habitats and species in the Howard Buford
Recreation Area (HBRA or Buford Park) while effectively meeting demand for low intensity recreational
use of the park, as provided for in the 1994 HBRA Master Plan. The Plan seeks to address identified
threats to conservation targets, effectively manage habitat areas, reduce wildfire risk, and increase
public safety within the park. The Plan will guide efforts by Lane County and its partners to secure
sufficient resources for habitat conservation throughout Buford Park.

2.2 Regional Context: Mount Pisgah’s Importance
The 2,215-acre HBRA, located primarily on the eastern, southern, and western slopes of Mount Pisgah,
is a regionally significant natural area. The park encompasses a mosaic of increasingly rare habitats,
including oak woodland, savanna, upland and wetland prairie, and riparian forest. HBRA is the second
largest block of native prairie and oak habitats in the Willamette Valley under conservation
management by a single owner; only the 5,706-acre Finley National Wildlife Refuge near Corvallis
(managed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) is larger.

HBRA is the largest single public ownership in a 4,700-acre complex of conservation lands in the Mount
Pisgah area owned by public and private agencies. Mount Pisgah is surrounded on three sides by two
major rivers, the Middle and Coast Forks of the Willamette. At the confluence and across the river along
the north bank of the Middle Fork of the Willamette, more than 1000 acres of additional public lands are
managed by Willamalane Parks District, Springfield Utility Board, Oregon State Parks, and Friends of
Buford Park & Mt. Pisgah. On HBRA’s northern boundary is the 1305-acre Willamette Confluence
Preserve, acquired in 2010 by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) with support from Lane County. This
neighboring property includes conifer forest, oak woodland and savanna habitats on Mount Pisgah’s
northeast slope, as well as extensive floodplains, including large ponds from historic gravel mining and
six miles of river frontage. TNC and partner agencies in the vicinity of the confluence of the Middle Fork
and Coast Fork are collaborating to restore riparian and upland habitats on this property.

The resulting 4,700-acre block of contiguous open space not only offers primarily low-intensity
recreation opportunities, but also serves as an important natural area for the conservation of declining
fish, wildlife, and native flora, close to the cities of Eugene and Springfield, which combined are Oregon’s
second largest population center.

2.3 Rare Habitats at HBRA
Howard Buford Recreation Area is noted for its diversity of habitat types. A number of these Willamette
Valley habitats have become increasingly rare as much of the Willamette Valley landscape continues to
be converted to agricultural and urban uses. As a result, the loss of native grassland and oak woodland
habitat types has been dramatic, making the preservation of these habitats at HBRA ecologically
significant for the Willamette Valley. See maps entitled: Change in Willamette Valley Strategy Habitats:
1850 vs. 2004 (Figure 2-1). Strategy habitats are those identified in the Oregon Conservation Strategy
(ODFW, 2006). From lowland to upland, examples of rare habitat types within HBRA include:

• Willamette Valley riparian forest,

• Willamette Valley wetland prairie,
• Willamette Valley upland prairie,
• Willamette Valley savanna (scattered trees, often oaks, in native grassland)
• Willamette Valley chaparral (fire-adapted, drought-tolerant shrub land)

Some wonder if conifer forests are rare in the Willamette Valley. Since the 1850s, the acreage occupied
by conifer forests has expanded into oak woodlands, savannas and prairies, in part because Euro-
Americans settlers to Oregon introduced the practice of suppressing fires. As a result, acreage of closed
canopy conifer forest in the Willamette Valley at the present time is similar to the acreage that existed
in the 1850’s (Hulse et al., 2002). Therefore, young and mature (less than 150-year old) conifer forests
are a plentiful habitat type in the Willamette Valley, and not considered rare. Within HBRA, cooler,
wetter north-facing slopes usually support Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) forests that contribute to
the park’s habitat diversity.

Figure 2-1: Change in Willamette Valley Strategy Habitats 1850 vs. 2004

Source: Oregon Conservation Strategy, 2006

2.4 Managing Conservation Targets & Fire Risk in a Changing Climate
Another need for the HBRA Plan is to anticipate and plan for how future changes in the region’s climate
could stress or change the park’s habitats, wildlife and rare species in the coming century.

While some may debate whether human activity is a primary cause of the documented changes in air
temperatures, precipitation patterns, and extreme weather occurrences, a broad consensus of current
scientific research provide evidence of a changing climate regionally and worldwide. This evidence
ranges from shrinking glaciers, decreased polar ice caps, decreased regional snow packs, rising sea
levels, and record high temperatures. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel, 2014) is a generally accepted compilation of the state of scientific research on
the issue.

In the Willamette Valley, scientists project that climate change is expected to result in:
• warmer and drier spring weather,
• hotter and drier summers (with increased potential for wildfires), and
• warmer winters with more frequent severe storms causing increased flooding (from faster snow
melt) and smaller snowpack.

Without planning and active management, longer, hotter, drier summers could increase the risk of
catastrophic fires that could destroy both remnant oak woodlands and early seral stage conifer forests
in HBRA , as well as threaten adjacent private property and increase risks to public safety. Because of
the drought tolerance of native oaks, prairie grasses, and forbs, managing the park to sustain prairies
and oak savanna can make the park’s habitats more resilient, and reducing woody fuels can reduce the
risk of stand-replacing or high intensity wildfires.

Restoring riparian floodplain habitats should increase their ability to detain and filter floodwaters,
reducing impacts downstream during high flows. The South Meadow Floodplain project in HBRA offers
an example of how this can be accomplished while also enhancing passive recreational amenities such
as improved trails, backwater overlook, and a wildlife blind.

2.5 Relationship to Previous Plans
Local, state and federal efforts to conserve a large natural area at the confluence of the Coast and
Middle Forks of the Willamette River date to the early 1970s, when the Oregon Legislature authorized
state funds to match federal Land and Water Conservation funding to purchase the 2,200-acre Mount
Pisgah State Park. In 1982, after the state transferred title to the park to Lane County, the Board of
Commissioners renamed the park Howard Buford Recreation Area to honor Lane County planner
Howard Buford.
2.5.1 HBRA Master Plan (1994)

In 1994, Lane County adopted the HBRA Master Plan as a refinement to the Metro Plan. The HBRA
Master Plan provides a comprehensive site analysis, a set of nine park goals, and facilities plan that
addresses park goals, in addition to recommendations for further study, The HBRA Master Plan
specifically directed Lane County to develop both a wildlife management plan and a separate vegetation
management plan. In 2005, Lane County decided to combine both plans into a single Habitat
Management Plan to address both wildlife and vegetation management. This practical and cost-saving
approach allows for evaluation of HBRA’s unique and thriving wildlife populations and their connections

to diverse plant communities (habitats) when planning and implementing management activities. This
Plan is relevant to, and helps achieve, six of the nine broad goals listed on p. 3 of the HBRA Master Plan
that are intended to guide managers:
1) Accommodate increased use while protecting the resource, minimizing development
and preserving the natural and rural character of the HBRA.
2) Protect sensitive and significant natural resource areas and restore degraded habitat.
3) Minimize conflicts among Park users.
6) Maximize the value of the Park as an educational resource.
7) Help coordinate efforts and cooperate with groups whose goals are complementary to
those of the HBRA.
8) Protect the park and its users from damage and injury and prepare for emergency
needs.
This Plan seeks to advance these goals through a more specific planning process to manage the park’s
natural resources, minimize conflicts, coordinate efforts among park groups, increase public safety, and
identify ways to increase the park’s value as an educational resource.

The 1994 HBRA Master Plan also included recommendations for trail renovation and construction, and
proposed an inventory and analysis of the HBRA trail system. This analysis was incorporated in to the
HBRA Trail Management Plan (Lane County Parks Division, 1995).
2.5.2 Confluence of Coast and Middle Forks Willamette River Project Area – Alternatives Team
Recommendation (1997)
In response to the 1980 Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act, which required the Bonneville
Power Administration (BPA) to compensate for losses of fish and wildlife habitat caused by construction
and operation of the region’s hydroelectric system, an inter-agency “Alternatives Team” was formed to
help generate a series of recommended habitat enhancements for the lower Coast Fork and Middle Fork
Willamette River. Included in the report was a recommendation for the acquisition and restoration of a
private agricultural parcel along the east bank of the Coast Fork, now the BPA-owned Sorenson site.
2.5.3 South Meadow Management Plan (2002)

The “South Meadow” (aka “South Pasture”) is an approximately 200-acre floodplain site located within
Lane County’s Howard Buford Recreation Area (HBRA) along the Coast Fork of the Willamette River.
The 1994 HBRA Master Plan identified the South Meadow as an area of “diminished use” as compared
to relatively greater use expected in the Arboretum and “North Bottomlands,” both located north of the
South Meadow. The Master Plan proposed new trails and wildlife observation blinds in the South
Meadow, as well as an education exhibit along Quarry Rd Trail #5.
The South Meadow Management Plan, adopted January 9, 2002 by Lane County’s Board of
Commissioners, is consistent with the HBRA Master Plan goal 2:
To protect sensitive and significant natural resource areas and restore degraded habitat.


To advance this park-wide goal and to further refine the proposed actions in the 1994 Master Plan, the
South Meadow Management Plan identifies three management goals:

Goal A: Restore the ecological integrity of the floodplain.
Goal B: Provide recreational opportunities compatible with ecological stewardship.
Goal C: Provide educational opportunities compatible with ecological stewardship.
2.5.4 Rivers to Ridges Open Space Study (2003)

Lane County, the Cities of Eugene and Springfield, and Willamalane Parks District endorsed the Rivers to
Ridges Metropolitan Regional Parks and Open Space Study: Vision and Strategies. This document
identified HBRA and the Willamette Confluence Preserve (acquired in 2010 by The Nature Conservancy)
as open space anchors connected to parks in the metro area by “greenways” along ridgelines and
“blueways” along streams and rivers. In general, the plan recognized the importance of the Willamette
River for linking several of the region's most significant park and open space features such as Howard
Buford Recreation Area, Island Park, Alton Baker Park, Skinner Butte Park, Delta Ponds, and Green
Island.

This Plan specifies ways to conserve and balance habitat and recreational values on the largest public
ownership in the Mount Pisgah area “open space anchor” as identified in the Rivers to Ridges Open
Space study.
2.5.5 Oregon Conservation Strategy (2006, updated in 2016)

The Oregon Conservation Strategy (Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, 2006, pp. 244-5; the 2016 update
is on the web at www.oregonconservationstrategy.org/ecoregion/willamette-valley/) specifically
identifies the Mount Pisgah area in its ecosystem conservation opportunity profile. This document notes
that:
• This area supports a number of at-risk species, including some of the largest northwestern pond
turtle (Actinemys marmorata) populations in the ecoregion,
• Lands in the Mount Pisgah area represent some of the area’s largest tracts of native habitats,
• Mount Pisgah is a designated Oregon Important Bird Area, and
• The area contains a great blue heron (Ardea herodias) rookery.

The Oregon Conservation Strategy explicity states the following actions should be taken:

• Actively manage uplands to promote and maintain oak savanna and prairie habitats,
• Maintain or enhance in-channel watershed function, connection to riparian habitat, flow and
hydrology,
• Maintain or restore riparian habitat and ecological function; ensure sufficient habitat complexity
for wildlife, and
• Promote early detection and suppression of invasive weeds


The Oregon Conservation Strategy identifies a number of priority habitats and species that are present
on Buford Park, including:

• Oak woodlands:
o Wayside aster (Eucephalus vialis)
o Western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus)
o Songbird assemblage including western wood pewee (Contopus sordidulus), Acorn
Woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), Western Bluebird (Sialia mexicana), White
breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis aculeata), chipping sparrow (Spizella passerina)
• Grasslands:
o Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum perpallidus)
o Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor)
o Western Rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus)
o Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus)
o Oregon Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus affinis)
o Western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta)
• Wetlands:
o Bradshaw’s lomatium (Lomatium bradshawii)
o Willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii)
o Yellow-breasted Chat (Icterieria virens auricollis)
o Northern red-legged frog (Rana aurora)
• Riparian:
o Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi)
o Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)
o Western Pond Turtle (Actinemys marmorata)
o Breeding riparian songbirds
o Great blue heron
o Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)
• Columbia (Willamette as tributary) River:
o Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
o Winter Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)
o Oregon Chub (Oregonichthys crameri)
• Freshwater aquatic:
o Western brook lamprey (Lampetra richardsoni)
o Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata)

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife provided partial funding for this Plan through its Oregon
Conservation Strategy Implementation grant program, in recognition of the vital importance of habitats
in HBRA and in the broader Mount Pisgah “conservation opportunity area.”
2.5.6 Willamette River Open Space Vision (2010)

The Willamette River Open Space Vision is the first comprehensive open space vision or plan specifically
for the Willamette River in the Eugene-Springfield region. It built on the 2003 Rivers to Ridges
Metropolitan Regional Parks and Open Space Vision that identified the Willamette River as a key
element of the region's open space network from a habitat, recreational, visual, and cultural

perspective. Lane Council of Governments completed the Willamette River Open Space Vision in 2010.
Below is the plan’s vision statement:
Our community has long treasured the Willamette River for the natural, recreational, and
visual qualities it provides. The river gives us a sense of place and contributes greatly to the
quality of life for all who call the Eugene-Springfield area home. The open space that lines
the river provides a welcome break from the urban environment, accommodates
recreational amenities of all types, and provides exceptional wildlife habitat. The river
corridor also functions as a linear connector between many of our region’s major parks and
natural areas for wildlife and humans alike. The goal of this planning effort is to create an
inspiring vision for the Willamette River corridor that will help lead the way for coordinated
efforts to further improve this outstanding open space resource in the coming years and
decades.
The document, maps and other information are available at: http://www.lcog.org/willamette/.
This Plan advances the Willamette River Open Space Vision by identifying priority habitat management
actions to conserve native habitats and enhance recreational opportunities in an “open space anchor”
located within the urban/rural interface of the Eugene-Springfield metropolitan area.
2.5.7 Lane County Parks and Open Space Master Plan (1981) and Lane County Parks Master
Plan (revision in development)
Lane County Parks Division is updating its 1981 Parks and Open Space Master Plan. The updated
document will be a long-term plan for the 70 recreation sites managed by the County, including HBRA.
The Parks Master Plan update would become an amendment, or change, to the County’s
Comprehensive Plan. In order for the new system-wide park Master Plan to take effect, the Lane County
Parks Advisory Committee will review and make recommendations to the Lane County Board of
Commissioners, which must adopt it by ordinance.
The Lane County webpage with more information is:
http://www.lanecounty.org/Departments/PW/Parks/Pages/masterplan.aspx
2.5.8 Other Plans and Assessments

All of HBRA is located within the Willamette River Greenway, as designated under Oregon Statewide
Planning Goal 15. The purpose of Goal 15 is to “protect, conserve, enhance and maintain the natural,
scenic, historical, agricultural, economic and recreational qualities of lands along the Willamette River as
the Willamette River Greenway”.
To further aquatic and floodplain habitat improvements along the Willamette River, the Oregon
Watershed Enhancement Board, Meyer Memorial Trust, and Bonneville Environmental Foundation
created the “Willamette River Initiative”, as a vehicle to support habitat restoration work. As part of this
effort, priority areas have been identified as “Anchor Habitats”, including both the Middle Fork and
Coast Fork Willamette in the vicinity of Mount Pisgah (OWEB, 2016).
Management plans or assessments have been developed for several nearby conservation ownerships.
These plans include:
1) Willamette Confluence Preserve Management Plan (TNC, 2012).
2) Sorenson Parcel Management Plan (Friends, 2015).

3) Turtle Flats Baseline Assessment (Friends, 2015).
4) Thurston Hills Management Plan (Willamalane, 2016).
5) Turtle Flats Management Plan (Friends, 2017).

• Hulse, D., S. Gregory, and J. Baker. 2002. Willamette River Basin Planning Atlas: Trajectories of
Environmental and Ecological Change. OSU Press, Corvallis.
• IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III
to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing
Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.
• Lane County Parks and Open Space Division. 1981. Lane County Parks and Open Space Plan.
Buford Recreation Area Master Plan.
• Lane County Parks Division. 1995. HBRA Trail Management Plan
• Lane County Parks Division & Friends of Buford Park & Mt. Pisgah. 2002. South Meadow
Management Plan.
• Lane Council of Governments and regional partners. 2003. Rivers to Ridges: Eugene – Springfield
Regional Parks and Open Spaces Vision.
• Lane Council of Governments and regional partners. 2010. Willamette River Open Space Vision
and Action Plan.
• Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006 and 2016. Oregon Conservation Strategy. 9, 11,
234-245.
• Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals
& Guidelines, Goal 15: Willamette River Greenway.
http://www.oregon.gov/lcd/docs/goals/goal15.pdf
• Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (2016). Willamette Special Investment Partnership,
Accomplishments Summary Report.
http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/docs/pubs/2016_Willamette_SIP_Report.pdf


Chapter 3: Methodology

3.1 The Conservation Action Planning Process
The “Conservation Action Planning” (CAP) methodology is a science-planning process used by
governments and land trusts around the world to develop management plans for large natural areas.
The Nature Conservancy initially developed the methodology in the 1990’s, in consultation with other
land management agencies and conservation organizations. The CAP process draws upon the best
professional judgment of a team of technical experts with knowledge in diverse disciplines and about
the planning area. The planning process has the following steps:

1. Identify conservation targets,
2. Evaluate viability and critical threats to conservation targets,
3. Incorporate public input,
4. Develop conservation strategies,
5. Establish conservation measures, and
6. Develop a supporting stewardship work plan.

More information about conservation action planning can be found in the “Conservation by Design 2.0.
Guidance Document” (The Nature Conservancy, 2016). The planning terms used in this chapter are
defined in the Glossary (Appendix A.)
3.1.1 Why This Tool Was Selected

Conservation Action Planning (CAP) is a straightforward and proven approach for planning,
implementing and measuring success for conservation projects. The analytical rigor of the CAP process
provides a level of confidence in the management strategies that are developed from it. CAP requires
analysis of the threats that impact the selected conservation targets, and identifies management
strategies to address the significant threats or improve viability of conservation targets. It then
establishes management actions and benchmarks for success to provide a quantifiable basis for
evaluating progress toward goals.
3.1.2 Other Conservation Action Plans developed in Western Oregon

Public agencies have used the Conservation Action Planning methodology to develop habitat
management plans for natural areas elsewhere in western Oregon. Below are four examples.
• The West Eugene Wetlands Conservation Action Plan included the City of Eugene, Bureau of
Land Management, and The Nature Conservancy.
• The Spencer Creek (south of Eugene, Oregon) Conservation Action Plan (U.S. Forest Service, City
of Eugene and The Nature Conservancy)
• The Table Rocks (in Medford, Oregon) Conservation Action Plan was developed by Bureau of
Land Management in partnership with The Nature Conservancy. BLM is using the results of the
Table Rocks CAP to inform their internal planning process.
• Nehalem River Watershed (north Oregon Coast) Conservation Action Plan was developed with
representation from two Soil and Water Conservation Districts.


3.2 Planning Process Overview
3.2.1 Technical Advisory Group

Consistent with the CAP process, Lane County convened an inter-agency Technical Advisory Group with
diverse expertise to work through the Conservation Action Planning protocol. Participants serving on the
TAG included representatives from the following agencies listed in the table below:

Figure 3-1: HBRA Habitat Management Plan Technical Advisory Group
AGENCY MEMBER ROLE / EXPERTISE
Lane County Parks Division Todd Winter Former Parks Manager and TAG chair
Oregon Dept. of Forestry Greg Wagenblast Fire management and suppression
Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Jeff Ziller, Kelly Reis, Erik Moberly, Aquatic and terrestrial biologists
Brian Wolfer, and Chris Yee
Oregon Department of Glenn Miller Invasive species management
Agriculture
Bonneville Power Administration Ben Tilley Vegetation management specialist
US Army Corps of Engineers Roberta Swift Wildlife (western pond turtle) biologist
Garrett Dorsey (2016) Wildlife Biologist
The Nature Conservancy Ed Alverson Botanist and ecologist
Jason Nuckols (2016) Willamette and Restoration Program
Manager
Mount Pisgah Arboretum Tom LoCascio Arboretum Site Manager and HBRA
Caretaker with historic knowledge of the
planning area
Watersheds Inc. Paul Hoobyar TAG facilitator specializing in natural
resource issues
Friends of Buford Park & Mt Jason Blazar Designer, landscape ecologist, steward
Pisgah
Friends Stewardship Coordinator and
Support staff to TAG
Friends of Buford Park & Mt. Bruce Newhouse Botanist and ecologist
Pisgah
Board member and chair of the Friends
Stewardship Technical Advisory

Committee
Project intern Sandra Koike TAG note taker
University of Oregon Candidate for Masters in Landscape
Architecture
Lane County thanks the many agencies and their staff that contributed in-kind time to help develop this
habitat management plan.

3.2.2 The Role of Friends of Buford Park & Mt. Pisgah
Friends of Buford Park & Mt Pisgah, a non-profit 501c3 organization, was a primary contributor to the
development of the habitat management planning process. Friends supported Lane County by:
• collaborating with Lane County to scope the Habitat Management Plan process,
• securing and administering a $40,000 “Oregon Conservation Strategy” grant from Oregon Dept. of
Fish and Wildlife to support plan development,
• providing funds for support staff, meeting facilitators, public outreach materials, public tours, and
• developing a Geographic Information System (GIS) project, which includes historic and current
vegetation maps and pertinent base layers to support development of the desired future condition
map, and to generate acreage figures for various habitat types, and
• developing the draft plan in collaboration with county staff.
• In addition, Friends of Buford Park’s Stewardship Technical Advisory Committee (STAC), which is
comprised of volunteer scientists, biologists, botanists, ecologists and related professions, served as
a research and support resource to the TAG. The TAG sometimes would refer a question or issue to
the STAC for additional research. Members of the STAC during development of this plan are listed in
Figure 3-2.
Figure 3-2: Friends of Buford Park & Mt. Pisgah Stewardship Technical Advisory Committee
MEMBER AFFILIATION / EXPERTISE
Bruce Newhouse Chair, field ecologist and naturalist, Salix Associates, and Friends'
representative on Technical Advisory Group.
Gail Baker Botanist and educator (retired) – joined STAC in 2014
Kat Beal Wildlife biologist (retired) – served on STAC 2013 - 2016
Bill Castillo Wildlife Biologist, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (retired) –
resigned from STAC in 2009
Greg Hyde Parks planner (retired) – joined STAC in 2015
Aryana Ferguson Restoration Specialist, Madrona Consulting
Dr. Bart Johnson, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Dept. of Landscape Architecture, University of
Oregon
John Koenig Botanist and hydrologist (retired)
Tom LoCascio Site Manager, Mount Pisgah Arboretum
David Predeek Botanist, U.S. Forest Service (retired)
Dr. Jim Reed, Ph.D. GIS specialist, The Hydrologic Group – STAC ex officio member
Dr. Bitty A Roy, Ph.D. Plant ecologist specializing in invasion biology and plant-fungus
ecology, University of Oregon – STAC sub-committee member
Kevin Shanley Landscape architect (retired) - joined STAC in 2015

Lane County thanks the technical experts on the Stewardship Technical Advisory Committee for their
contributed services to help develop this HBRA habitat management plan.

3.3 Public Involvement
Lane County, in collaboration with Friends, sought public input during the development of this Habitat
Management Plan through multiple outreach methods. Input from the public was essential to ensure
that the resulting plan addresses the needs and perspectives of park visitors and stakeholders.

In the spring and fall of 2008, prior to initiation of habitat planning, Friends implemented a related,
highly visible demonstration project along the Summit Trail (Trail 1) to educate the public about the
need to enhance prairie, savanna and oak woodland habitat. This project included weed removal and
savanna restoration through the removal of Douglas fir and thinning of oaks and maples. Before, during
and after implementation, the project engaged park visitors and the public through trailside information
tables, temporary signage, and brochures. In addition, multiple pre- and post-project tours described
the project goals and methods and the upcoming habitat management planning process. During
implementation, extensive media coverage included numerous television, radio and print media,
including a front-page article in The Register-Guard.

When habitat management planning began with the formation of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG),
park stakeholders, including the Mount Pisgah Arboretum and Sheriff’s Posse were invited to briefings
on the project and upcoming public input opportunities. During the planning process, Lane County, the
TAG and Friends collaborated to:
• host two public workshops: March 19, 2009 and June 2, 2009,
• publish displays and informational materials on the internet,
• obtain major article in The Register-Guard (March 27, 2009),
• host an informational booth at the Mount Pisgah Wildflower Festival in 2009,
• host two stakeholder meetings, Nov 12, 2008 and Sept 3, 2009, and
• post information about the planning process on the internet.
3.3.1 Lane County Technical Review

Lane County’s Public Works Department completed a technical review of the draft Habitat Management
Plan in 2012. An environmental engineer, natural resource analyst and environmental engineering
specialist were primary County contacts that reviewed and commented on the goals and objectives
developed during the planning process, and provided comments and suggestions on the final draft plan.
Lane County’s Parks Manager and Natural Areas Coordinator reviewed and contributed to the final draft
of this plan. This technical review augments the public meetings and other public input opportunities.
3.3.2 Habitat Management Plan, Version 2

Version 2 of the Habitat Management Plan was presented to the PAC and released for public review via
the Lane County Parks web site on May 9, 2016. A public comment period was open until July 31, 2016. A
news release was distributed to local media outlets on May 18, 2016, and an extensive public outreach
effort was implemented. Outreach events and opportunities included:
• Stakeholder meetings,
• Outreach to the general public, park neighbors and other stakeholders through website
postings; flyers at park kiosks; print, TV, and radio stories in May 2016,
• An informational booth at the May 19th 2016 Mount Pisgah Wildflower Festival,
• Three public park tours in June 2016, two public tours in 2017 (July and August respectively),
• An online survey to which there were 51 respondents

• A public open house at Harris Hall on May 25th to provide information and solicit public
feedback,
• Review by members of the inter-agency Technical Advisory Group, which met on May 5, 2016,
• Review by Parks Advisory Committee, including a public comment opportunity,

After the close of the public comment period, the comments were compiled and presented, along with a
summary memo, to the PAC on September 12th, 2016.
3.3.3 The Planning Process Ahead

The current version of the Plan, Version 3, reflects the input provided by the public and stakeholders
during this public review process. The Lane County Parks Advisory Committee (PAC) will review this draft
and may recommend that the Plan be approved by the Lane County Board of Commissioners. The PAC
will accept additional public comment on the draft plan during this process. Subsequently, Lane County
staff will present a final Habitat Management Plan to the Board of County Commissioners, allowing for
additional public comment on the plan before recognition.

This Plan identifies strategies for habitat management within to effectively guide the use of funding and
labor on the part of Lane County and partners within HBRA. The work plan identified in Chapter 10
constitutes a set of tasks, which if implemented, will support the continued viability of the conservation
targets present at HBRA. Maps showing desired future habitat conditions are intended to provide a
template for achieving the conservation vision for HBRA. However, the maps do not constitute a
financial commitment to implementing the necessary habitat improvements on a fixed timeline. Nor are
the maps intended to describe future habitat conditions in any given portion of the park with certainty,
given the financial and ecological variables that guide any course of habitat restoration. As such, this
document is intended to be a technical document in support of administrative actions, and is not a land
use planning document.

• The Nature Conservancy. 2016. Conservation by Design 2.0. Guidance Document.
http://cmp-openstandards.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CbD2.0_Guidance-Doc_Version-
1.pdf



Chapter 4: Conservation Vision, Conservation Targets,
and Other Habitats

4.1 Conservation Vision Statement
This Conservation Vision Statement expresses the positive future outcome of managing habitats at the
Howard Buford Recreation Area.

Conservation Vision Statement for HBRA
The Howard Buford Recreation Area will be managed to conserve and restore prairie, savanna,
woodland, forest, and river habitats in ways that support compatible recreational and educational uses
described in the HBRA Master Plan (1994).

The uplands shall sustain increasingly rare Willamette Valley habitat types including a mosaic of open
prairie, savanna, and oak woodland on sites where these habitats occurred historically. Conifer and
mixed forest shall be retained and enhanced in upland portions of HBRA that historically supported
forests. The lowlands shall sustain healthy riparian (streamside) and aquatic habitats and processes.
These native habitats shall conserve common and rare native plants and animals, including federally and
state-listed threatened and endangered species

Habitat restoration shall provide significant increases in quality and/or extent of priority habitat to
support a high diversity of wildlife species which were historically much more prevalent throughout the
entire Willamette Valley. Restoration will also lessen the threat of severe wildfire through reduction of
dense, brushy fuels in prairie, savanna, and oak woodland habitats.

4.2 Conservation targets
This plan identifies nine focal conservation targets (see glossary for definitions of planning terms). Six
are habitats, one is a federally endangered plant, one is a rare bird, and one is "visitor experience." The
focal conservation targets represent 1) habitat types identified as important for conservation within the
Oregon Conservation Strategy for the Willamette Valley Ecoregion; 2) habitats that provide important
aquatic, wetland, and upland ecological functions; 3) Federally listed species or species petitioned for
listing; and 4) public uses that benefit from a landscape rich in native biodiversity. Together, the focal
conservation targets are intended to represent and encompass the full array of priority conservation
values (habitats, species, and related beneficial public uses) of HBRA.

The TAG determined that this set of focal conservation targets was sufficient to represent the full range
of ecological communities and native plant and animal species within the park, without being such a
large list as to make the analysis unwieldy. The focal conservation targets are:

• Upland prairie and savanna
• Oak woodland
• Wetland prairie
• Bradshaw’s lomatium (Lomatium bradshawii)
• Buckbrush chaparral

• Willamette riparian systems and associated floodplain
• Creeks and streams
• Oregon Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus affinis)
• Visitor experience

Nested conservation targets are more specific natural features or species associated with each of the
six habitats selected as focal targets. These are rare species, habitat types, or ecological communities
whose conservation needs are subsumed by one or more focal conservation targets. Examples of
nested targets include rare species, like the Western Meadowlark (Oregon’s state bird that nests in
prairies) and rare features, such as a seep within an upland prairie. Management actions that benefit the
focal targets will also benefit the associated nested targets. Rare species that are included as nested
targets are based on their status as determined by the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (2016).

The nine focal conservation targets are described below. Nested targets are listed under the habitat
they are most commonly associated with. Chapter 6 defines goals and strategies to conserve the
conservation targets. Rare plant communities or habitat types are from the Oregon Conservation
Strategy (ODFW, 2006).
4.2.1 Upland prairie and savanna

Description: These are grass and forb-
dominated plant communities on non-hydric
soils with few to no trees or shrubs (prairie),
or with scattered open-grown trees that are
not so dense as to break up the continuous
grassland ground layer (savanna). The
primary savanna tree species is Oregon
white oak (Quercus garryana), but scattered
conifers such as ponderosa pine (Pinus
ponderosa), incense cedar (Calocedrus
decurrens), and Douglas fir may also be
present. California black oak (Quercus
kelloggii) grows naturally within about 1.5
miles to the west of HBRA, and one tree is
located within HBRA in the Mount Pisgah
Arboretum, but the origin of this tree is
uncertain. Locations vary from productive
soils on the valley floor to shallow soils on
hot, dry exposures in the valley foothills.
These grass and forb-dominated habitats
were historically maintained by fire, which
prevented succession to woodland and
forest. Upland prairie often grades
continuously into savanna, which in turn
may grade into oak woodland. Upland
prairie, savanna, and oak woodland provides important habitat for snakes and lizards, particularly where
rocky.


Nested targets include:
• Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta)
• Upland yellow violet (Viola praemorsa ssp. praemorsa)
• Camas pocket gopher (Thomomys bulbivorus)
• Western Pond Turtle (Actinemys marmorata, for nest sites)
• Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus)
• Western rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus)
• Seasonal seeps and swales
• Herbaceous balds and rock outcrops

Several other globally rare plant species documented from upland prairie and savanna habitats in the
southern Willamette Valley could potentially be found occurring naturally within HBRA. These species,
which are rare throughout their entire geographic range, include Willamette daisy (Erigeron
decumbens), shaggy horkelia (Horkelia congesta ssp. congesta), Kincaid’s lupine (Lupinus oreganus), and
white-topped aster (Sericocarpus rigidus).
4.2.2 Oregon Vesper Sparrow

Description: Oregon Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus affinis) is a subspecies of Vesper Sparrow
that breeds only in the region west of the Cascades from northern California to western Oregon,
western Washington, and (historically) southwestern British Columbia. Recent range-wide surveys
estimate that only about 5,000 birds remain, with fewer than 500 birds in the Willamette Valley
ecoregion. Very few of the remaining breeding populations are on public lands. More information on the
bird’s status can be found at New Study Heightens Concern for Oregon Vesper Sparrow (American Bird
Conservancy, 2016).

Birders have long documented this species during the breeding season in prairie and savanna habitats in
HBRA , but sightings have declined in recent years. This grayish, brown bird has a streaked chest and
back with white outer tail feathers. Oregon Vesper Sparrow is a ground-nesting bird, and is a species of
upland prairie and savanna, with fairly specific habitat requirements in terms of tree density, short
vegetation, plant species composition, and bare ground. Managing prairie habitats in HBRA can help
sustain the presence of vesper sparrow in the park. It generally does not nest in otherwise suitable
habitat located within about 25 meters of dense forest.

4.2.3 Oak
Woodland
Description: Oak
woodland is a sparsely
treed community
dominated by oaks
with tree density
intermediate between
the scattered trees of
an oak savanna and
the interlocking
crowns of a closed
canopy forest. Tree
crowns usually do not
touch, allowing
sunlight to penetrate Typical oak woodland habitat along West Summit Trail #1. A 2008
to the ground. Tree restoration project removed invasive plants, woody vegetation and
architecture is a mixture encroaching conifers in this area to enhance oak woodland.
of open-grown oaks and
more vase-shaped oaks whose canopies are constrained by nearby trees. Conifers, including Douglas-fir,
Ponderosa Pine, and Incense Cedar, may be associated with oaks. The ground layer of grasses and forbs
is broken up by tree shade and/or by the presence of dispersed or dense shrubs. Oak woodland is
located on non-hydric soils with varied topography, frequently on hill slopes of small buttes and valley
foothills. It grades into savanna at the lower end of tree density and into closed canopy forest on the
upper end.

Ponderosa pine is an important component of an oak-pine woodland community that is found in several
parts of HBRA, particularly on the south and east slopes of Mount Pisgah. Ponderosa pine, which is at
the edge of its geographic distribution in the Willamette Valley, grows with, and has a similar ecological
profile to, Oregon white oak. It is commonly being associated with dry or rocky soils that historically
were fire-influenced. While Ponderosa pine occurs naturally in scattered pockets throughout much of
the Willamette Valley, very few conservation sites or preserves happen to support examples of
Ponderosa pine communities. In the absence of management, Ponderosa pine is similarly vulnerable to
suppression by faster growing conifers such as Douglas-fir.

• Western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus)
• White-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis)
• Acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus)
• Wayside aster (Eucephalus vialis)
• Thin-leaved peavine (Lathyrus holochlorus)
• Ponderosa pine-Oregon white oak woodland


4.2.4 Wetland Prairie
Description This is a
grass and forb
dominated community
with few to no trees or
shrubs, located on
hydric soils that are
saturated to the
surface during the
rainy season and dry
during the summer.
Perched water tables
associated with
relatively impermeable
clay soils are
characteristic of this
wetland type, but it
also is found on lower
slopes in areas of
seasonal groundwater
discharge. Surface
topography includes
pedestals and
hummocks emerging above water level as well as vernal pools. Wetland prairie may be associated with
shrub-scrub and forested wetlands where woody plants have established due to fire suppression.

• Western Meadowlark (Sternella neglecta)
• Yellow- Breasted Chat (Icteria virens)
• Willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii)
• Timwort (Cicendia quadrangularis)
• Meadow checkermallow (Sidalcea campestris)
• Cusick’s checkermallow (Sidalcea cusickii)
• Hitchcock’s blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium hitchcockii)
• Seeps and swales

4.2.5 Bradshaw’s lomatium

Description: Bradshaw’s lomatium (Lomatium bradshawii) is a
conservation target species at the HBRA because it is federally
and state listed as an “endangered” species. It grows in wet
prairie habitat in the southeast portion of the HBRA. It is an
important population for the recovery of the species, because
it is the largest population within the Eugene East recovery
zone.
Cusick’s checkermallow


Bradshaw’s Lomatium is endemic to the Willamette Valley and occurs only in wet prairie habitat. Wet
prairies that comprise suitable habitat have heavy clay soil and a seasonally high water table (water
perched usually at or just
above the surface) through
the early part of the
growing season, and often
are dominated by tufted
hairgrass (Deschampsia
cespitosa). Historically,
vegetation of these sites
were maintained by fire
(from either indigenous
peoples’ cultural practice of
burning prairies or from
ignition by lightning strike),
or by flooding from rivers,
or high water tables.
Sustaining the population of
Bradshaw’s lomatium in
HBRA is an important action
identified in the US Fish and
Wildlife Service’s 2010
“Recovery Plan For The Prairie Species Of Western
Oregon And Southwestern Oregon”

4.2.6 Buckbrush chaparral

Description: This is a shrub-dominated community
with few to no trees located on excessively drained
to shallow soils on hot, dry hillside exposures and
upon gravel bars within the floodplain. The
principal shrub species is buckbrush (Ceanothus
cuneatus), with associations of snowberry
(Symphoricarpos albus), tall Oregon grape
(Berberis aquifolium), poison oak (Toxicodendron
diversilobum), and the occasional Oregon white
oak tree. Lane County is the northern limit in the
range of buckbrush chaparral and Mount Pisgah is
the largest remaining patch of this habitat in the
area. A population of Hedgerow hairstreak
(Satyrium saepium) butterflies, uncommon at low
elevations (below 1000’), utilize the buckbrush as
its sole host plant at Mount Pisgah.

• Hedgerow hairstreak (Satyrium saepium)
• Blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea)

4.2.7 Willamette riparian systems and associated floodplain

Description: Riparian areas are dynamic biological and physical systems that act as the interface
between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Riparian areas encompass the land and vegetation adjacent
to Willamette River channels, oxbow lakes, alcoves, backwater areas, and sloughs that are influenced by
perennial or intermittent water and the influence of hydric and fluvent soils. The frequency and physical
extent of periodic flooding, an important disturbance regime, shapes the form and ecosystem function
of the floodplain. Plant communities common within this system include Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia) -
big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) floodplain forest, black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa)
bottomland forest, and willow (Salix sp.) shrub thickets.

• Upper Willamette spring
Chinook (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha)
• Cutthroat trout
(Oncorhynchus clarkii)
• Rainbow trout,
(Oncorhynchus mykiss),
including the anadromous
variant Winter Steelhead
• Oregon chub (Oregonichthys
crameri)
• Northwestern pond turtle
(Actinemys marmorata)
• Northern red-legged frog
(Rana aurora)
• Bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)
• Dwarf false rue-anemone
(Enemion stipitatum)


4.2.8 Creeks and Streams
Description: These are riparian
areas with intermittent flows,
typically running from October
through early June, and
originate from the slopes of
Mount Pisgah. These areas are
characterized as first and
second order streams. Those
that are first order headwater
streams are closely associated
with seeps fed by ground
water discharge. Plant
communities common within
this system include oak
woodland, wet prairie and
mixed forest.

• Cutthroat trout
(Oncorhynchus clarkii)
• Rainbow trout, (Oncorhynchus mykiss), including the anadromous variant Winter Steelhead

Winter Steelhead at HBRA (photo: Jim Reed)

4.2.9 Visitor
Experience
Description:
Compatible public
use in the Howard
Buford Recreation
Area (HBRA)
includes recreational
and educational uses
and activities
identified in the
1994 HBRA Master
Plan. This plan
recognizes that a
primary reason
people visit HBRA is
to recreate in the
diverse natural
beauty provided by
diverse, healthy
habitats. This
Habitat
Management Plan provides guidance to land managers to help ensure that recreation and visitor
experience are enhanced and compatible with the management of the significant natural values and
conservation targets recognized in the HBRA Master Plan.


4.2.10 Other Habitats
HBRA contains hundreds of acres of other habitats that visitors enjoy, such as conifer forests on Mount
Pisgah's north facing slopes. Unlike the habitats selected as conservation targets, conifer forests have
not declined from historic abundance in the Willamette Valley ecoregion, although their structure has
been altered, and the acreage of conifer forest currently managed primarily for conservation values is
limited. However, these forests still contribute to the diversity of habitats for plants and wildlife in
HBRA. While habitat management at HBRA will prioritize projects to sustain the conservation targets,
regionally common habitat types will also be managed and conserved. These habitat types are described
below:
Conifer forest:
Description: In general,
a forest is considered as
a stand of trees at a
density of 100 to 200
trees per acre (or
greater). The canopy
cover from trees
occupying the overstory
is greater than 75
percent. Within the
HBRA, Douglas-fir
(Pseudotsuga menziesii)
is the most common
tree associated with
conifer forest and is
most often the
dominant tree in the
overstory. This habitat
type includes several
sub-types as listed
below. In addition,
there are small stands
of Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia), a fire-sensitive conifer, on Mount Pisgah’s north slope. Most conifer
forest within HBRA is 50-75 year-old second growth from logging in areas of historic mature forests, as
well as conifer encroachment into former oak savanna and oak woodland over the last 5-7 decades.
However, there are scattered older conifers, often “wolf trees” that were not removed during previous
logging.
Nested community types and rare species include:
• Douglas-fir – Bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) forest
• Douglas-fir – Grand fir (Abies grandis) forest
• Douglas-fir – Incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) forest
• Douglas-fir – Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) forest
• Douglas-fir – Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii) forest
• Tall bugbane (Cimicfuga elata)


4.3 Projected Increase in Extent of Focal Conservation Target Habitats
and Resources
Implementation of the HBRA Habitat Management plan and its supporting work plan (as presented in
Chapter 10 and Appendix E) will result in a direct increase in the total area occupied by each Focal
Conservation Target Habitat, resources that directly support Focal Conservation Targets, as well as
Other Habitats. Figure 4-1 presents an accounting of the projected change.

Extent Projected NET

Figure 4-1 Focal Conservation Target or Other in 2008 Extent in CHANGE PERCENT
Habitat Percent Change 2008-2035 (ACRES) 2035 (ACRES) (ACRES) CHANGE
Visitor Experience - parking areas and roads 16 17 1 6.25%
Visitor Experience – historic facilities 2 2 0 0%
Visitor Experience - event facilities 3 7 4 133%
Oak Savanna 363 716 353 97%

Upland Prairie 143 223 80 56%
Wet Prairie 35 66 31 89%
(Open) Oak Woodland 237 496 259 109%
Buckbrush Chaparral 14 40 26 186%
Forested Wetland 42 30 -12 29%

Riparian Bottomland Forest 147 182 35 24%
Upland Conifer forest 275 376 101 37%
Upland Hardwood Forest 27 35 8 30%

Other non-target cover types 910 25 -885 97%
OTE - This table does not account for changes associated with Creeks and Streams, Bradshaw’s
N
lomatium, Oregon Vesper Sparrow, or the trail system inventory.

• American Bird Conservancy. 2016. New Study Heightens Concern for Oregon Vesper Sparrow.
https://abcbirds.org/new-study-heightens-concern-oregon-vesper-sparrow/
• Christy, J.A. and D. Vander Schaaf. Oregon Natural Heritage Program, natural (Pre-settlement)
vegetation classification. 1996.
• Kagan, Jimmy and Steve Caicco. Manual of Oregon Actual Vegetation. 1992.
• Newhouse, B. Native Wetland Plant Communities of Oregon. 1998.
• Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species of Oregon, Oregon Biodiversity Information Center
(2016). http://inr.oregonstate.edu/sites/inr.oregonstate.edu/files/2016-rte-book.pdf
• Titus, Jonathan. Native Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Ecotypes and their Biota – Willamette
Valley, Oregon. 1996.
• US Department of Agriculture, US Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region. Field Guide to
Riparian Plant Communities in Northwestern Oregon. 2005.
• US Fish and Wildlife Service. Recovery Plan for the Prairie Species of Western Oregon and
Southwestern Oregon. 2010


Figure 4-2: HBRA Existing Condition circa 2008 Map

Figure 4-3: Desired Future Condition in the HBRA circa 2035

See Appendix E for detailed maps of each Stewardship Zone Management Unit.


Chapter 5: Viability and Threats to the Conservation
Targets

5.1 Assessing the Viability of Each Conservation Target
The Technical Advisory Group (TAG) evaluated the current “viability” of each focal conservation target.
This provides a measure of the “health” of the target, and leads to the development of strategies to
maintain or enhance the target’s health. The Conservation Action Planning process does this by having
the team of experts first identify several “key ecological attributes” that are necessary to the long-term
health of each conservation target.

For example, a healthy, viable prairie may have a “key ecological attribute” of an abundance of native
grasses and forbs (“wildflowers”). Another example of a key ecological attribute of a healthy prairie is
low cover of woody vegetation. After identifying a number of “key attributes” for each focal
conservation target, the experts assigned one of four viability rankings for each attribute: “poor,” “fair,”
“good,” or “very good.” For example, a prairie whose key attribute of less than five percent woody cover
(trees and shrubs) was ranked as “very good.” Figure 5.1 identifies key ecological attributes and the
TAG’s viability rankings for each conservation target.

5.2 Assessing Threats to Each Conservation Target
The next step in the CAP process is to analyze the threats to the long-term viability of each conservation
target. Building on the understanding of each target’s “key attributes,” the TAG examined what
ecological processes or external threats (such as invasive weeds) would undermine or threaten those
key attributes.

For example, invasive exotic shrubs, like Scot’s broom and blackberry, can convert a prairie’s structure
to a shrub land. Western Meadowlarks or western pond turtles can no longer nest in the former prairie.
Therefore, the threat of invasive non-native woody plants may be a greater threat than an invasive
grass. Where possible, the TAG also attempted to identify and analyze the root causes of the threats.

Figure 5-2 is a summary of the TAG’s analysis of the most significant threats by conservation target. This
is an attempt to synthesize many hours of analysis and discussion. After the most significant threats
have been identified, the CAP planning process seeks to identify high priority stewardship goals,
objectives and projects to reduce the threats.

• The Nature Conservancy. 2016. Conservation by Design 2.0. Guidance Document. http://cmp-
openstandards.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/CbD2.0_Guidance-Doc_Version-1.pdf


Figure 5-1: Viability of Conservation Targets Table







Figure 5-2: Summary of Threats Table

Chapter 6: Goals and Strategies
The goals and strategies listed below were developed carefully to address park management issues in a
way that maintains or improves the condition of (Figure 5-1) and/or addresses the most significant
threats (Figure 5-2) to the nine focal conservation targets and their associated nested targets. However,
despite the importance of these activities, funding and other resources available for implementation are
currently limited.

Fortunately, wide recognition of the conservation value of Howard Buford Recreation Area has
generated significant support for habitat improvement in the park in the past. This support has come
from a variety of sources, including private donors and grants secured by Friends of Buford Park & Mt.
Pisgah and, separately, by the Mount Pisgah Arboretum; participation in projects by Lane County’s
operations team; in-kind contributions of technical expertise and services from partner agencies;
scientific research by University professors and their graduate students; and tens of thousands of hours
of labor contributed by volunteers to care for the park.

This visionary plan identifies the highest priorities for available resources, and a focus for collaborative
partnerships and future grant writing efforts. With this management plan in hand, park managers,
partner agencies and volunteer groups can collaborate more effectively to conserve the park’s diverse
habitats for the public to enjoy for many years to come. Note that there is no priority implied by the
order in which the goals and strategies are listed.

Projects that are consistent with these goals and strategies are described in Chapter 10, both by
conservation target and geographically by stewardship zone.
GOAL 1: Provide a safe and positive visitor experience in Howard Buford Recreation Area (HBRA)

Conservation Target: Visitor Experience

Issues Addressed: Goal 1 seeks to enhance the visitor experience and alleviate impediments to a quality
experience.

• Strategy 1.1: Minimize adverse impacts of management activities upon visitor experience.
• Strategy 1.2: Manage vegetation within designated parking areas to enhance visibility and deter
crime.
• Strategy 1.3: Collaborate with ODF to incorporate fire evacuation information (in case of wildfire)
within signage posted at the trailhead.
• Strategy 1.4: Monitor trail usage and collect census information to quantify park usage, inform
seasonal management decisions, and long term planning considerations.
• Strategy 1.5: Identify and address hazard trees within 30’ of the edge of designated trail corridors.
• Strategy 1.6: Manage populations of poison oak and non-native blackberry to prevent
encroachment along all designated recreational trail corridors.
• Strategy 1.7: Locate viewpoints and benches in a manner that nurtures a sense of place while
minimizing impacts to other users and habitat.

• Strategy 1.8: Manage dog use in HBRA to reduce impacts to other visitors by requiring that dogs be
on leash throughout the park except in specific designated off-leash areas or trails.

GOAL 2: Educate park users about the unique natural values that make the HBRA and the broader
Mount Pisgah area a priority for conservation.

Conservation Target: All conservation targets.

Issues Addressed: Goal 2 seeks to foster visitors’ appreciation of Mount Pisgah’s importance and
uniqueness as a regionally significant habitat area, to encourage visitors to enjoy the park with care,
minimize their impacts to other conservation targets, and become engaged in and supportive of habitat
management and conservation activities.

• Strategy 2.1: Collaborate with Friends of Buford Park & Mt. Pisgah, Mount Pisgah Arboretum, the
Sheriff’s Mounted Posse, and other stakeholders to survey and educate park patrons about impacts
of off-trail activity and cultivate a “stay-on-the-trail” ethic.
• Strategy 2.2: Partner with organizations such as Friends of Buford Park & Mount Pisgah, Travel Lane
County, Mount Pisgah Arboretum, equestrian groups, the University of Oregon, and watershed
councils, to develop an interpretation program including media outreach, guided tours, self-guided
tours (possibly using digital media), and informational displays. The program should enhance
appreciation for Mount Pisgah’s natural capital, elevate understanding of and support for native
habitat management and conservation on local and ecoregional scales, and cultivate a “leave no
trace” ethic.
• Strategy 2.3: Educate visitors to help them understand the seasonal sensitivities of wildlife to visitor
activities.

GOAL 3: Maintain and improve the park’s trail system to minimize ecological impacts while providing
views of and access to HBRA’s diverse habitats.


Issues Addressed: Goal 3 seeks to enhance visitor experience by improving trail conditions and reducing
impacts of recreation upon other conservation targets.

• Strategy 3.1: Encourage park visitors to remain on designated trails.
• Strategy 3.2: Manage dog use in HBRA to reduce impacts to wildlife by requiring that dogs be on
leash throughout the park except in specific designated off-leash areas or during specified seasons.
• Strategy 3.3: Manage vegetation to preserve and enhance trailside viewpoints, as well as provide
shade in appropriate locations.
• Strategy 3.4: Update 1995 HBRA Trail Management Plan to ensure that the trail system addresses
the visitor experience and habitat needs/goals of the Habitat Management Plan.
• Strategy 3.5: Apply best management practices and trail standards (see Chapter 11) when
implementing trail construction and maintenance projects.

• Strategy 3.6: Research feasibility of a forage production program to produce “Pisgah” native hay
(consisting of native grasses and forbs harvested from designated areas in bottomland portions of
HBRA) with consultation from area ranchers and equestrian groups.
• Strategy 3.7: Use best available science about wildlife and habitat impacts of different visitor uses
and facilities to guide decisions about improving or constructing trails and facilities for park visitors.
GOAL 4: Minimize impacts of park management on conservation targets.


Issues Addressed: Goal 4 seeks to reduce impacts from park management upon conservation targets.

• Strategy 4.1: Manage natural areas, recreational facilities (including but not limited to trails and
parking areas), and utility corridors consistent with best management practices in the Oregon
Department of Transportation BMPs (adopted by Lane County) and the “Stewardship Tool Box” in
Chapter XI of this Habitat Management Plan.
• Strategy 4.2: Managers reference the Habitat Management Plan to guide habitat management
practices.
• Strategy 4.3: Partner with confluence area land management agencies to design and develop an
equipment cleaning facility.
• Strategy 4.4: Collaborate with agency partners to secure designated equipment for use specifically
within natural areas in the Mount Pisgah area.

GOAL 5: Restore and enhance prairie, savanna and oak woodland habitats by reducing encroaching
woody vegetation.

Conservation Targets: Prairie and savanna, oak woodland, wet prairie, Oregon Vesper Sparrow.

Issues Addressed: Goal 5 seeks to enhance viability of wet prairie, upland prairie, savanna and oak
woodland habitats by reducing the threat of encroachment from woody vegetation.

• Strategy 5.1: Treat 1,086 acres to reduce woody cover in oak woodland, savanna and prairie and wet
prairie habitats so they are under the appropriate thresholds for woody cover, using methods that
minimize soil disturbance and impacts to remnant native herbaceous vegetation.
• Strategy 5.2: Collaborate with Bonneville Power Administration, Friends of Buford Park & Mt Pisgah,
Oregon Department of Forestry, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and other partners to reduce density of
woody vegetation within prairie, savanna, and oak woodland habitats.
• Strategy 5.3: Retain appropriate amounts of large down wood and dead trees, or create snags, for
habitat value when reducing tree density as part of savanna and oak woodland restoration.


GOAL 6: Achieve significant restoration of prairie and savanna, oak woodland, and wet prairie
habitats in HBRA.

Conservation Targets: Upland prairie and savanna, oak woodland, wet prairie, Oregon Vesper Sparrow

Issues Addressed: Goal 6 seeks to enhance viability of upland and wet prairie, savanna and oak
woodlands by introducing periodic ecological burns.

• Strategy 6.1: Continue ongoing collaboration with Oregon Department of Forestry East Lane District,
Rivers to Ridges Partnership, and other qualified fire management entities to design and implement
ecological burns on an average of 50-250 acres annually.
• Strategy 6.2: By 2020 collaborate with Oregon Department of Forestry East Lane District to revise
fire management plan to update suppression objectives within HBRA to minimize negative habitat
impacts from wildfire suppression efforts.
• Strategy 6.3: By 2022, use an integrated pest management strategy to manage fuels along the edge
of forests, prairies and savannas to reduce potential for fire escape and catastrophic fire conditions.
• Strategy 6.4: By 2032, achieve a fire return interval of three to 13 years on at least 1,502 acres
spanning prairie and savanna, oak woodland, and wet prairie.

GOAL 7: Achieve significant restoration of chaparral habitat in HBRA.

Conservation Targets: Buckbrush chaparral.

Issues Addressed: Goal 7 seeks to enhance viability of this habitat by using ecological burns.

• Strategy 7.1: Burn 25 percent of the buckbrush chaparral habitat periodically to achieve a fire return
interval of 50 years.
• Strategy 7.2: By 2032, triple the acreage where buckbrush (Ceanothus cuneatus) affords at least 25
percent cover in habitat blocks of at least five acres.

GOAL 8: Manage for diverse native plant communities within each conservation target habitat.

Conservation Targets: Prairie and savanna, oak woodland, wet prairie, Oregon Vesper Sparrow.

Issues Addressed: Goal 8 seeks to enhance viability of prairie and savanna, oak woodland, and wet
prairie by reducing the threat of invasive, non-native vegetation.

• Strategy 8.1: By 2020, 10 or more patches greater than 10 acres of prairie, savanna, oak woodland,
and wet prairie have five or more “high-fidelity” (defined in Appendix A: Glossary) native
herbaceous species with 75 percent frequency in one meter square plots, and 10 or more additional
native herbaceous species occurring with at least 25 percent frequency in one meter square plots.
• Strategy 8.2: Maintain existing high quality habitat patches using ecological burning, mowing, and
other treatments to control species of invasive plants.
• Strategy 8.3: Enhance low quality patches of existing habitat.


GOAL 9: Increase the extent of wet prairie habitat.

Conservation Targets: Wet prairie, Bradshaw’s lomatium.

Issues Addressed: Goal 9 seeks to enhance viability of federally endangered Bradshaw’s lomatium and
its wet prairie habitat by increasing the extent of wet prairie habitat on HBRA. Threats include impacts
from management of roads and trails, encroachments of native woody vegetation, invasion of non-
native vegetation, and altered ecological fire regime.

• Strategy 9.1: Where feasible, restore areas of wet prairie on HBRA that have been filled, drained,
modified or adversely affected by adjacent land management (such as modification of
upslope/upstream hydrology in conjunction with trail infrastructure).
• Strategy 9.2: Identify intact wet prairie on adjacent properties and explore potential to cooperate on
habitat enhancements, restoration funding, or conservation easements.
• Strategy 9.3: Establish new and expand existing populations of Bradshaw's lomatium within wet
prairies.

GOAL 10: Locate and, to the extent feasible, reduce populations of feral or harmful non-native animal
species impacting each conservation target.

Conservation Targets: All conservation targets.

Issues Addressed: Goal 10 seeks to reduce the threat of impacts by non-native animals.

• Strategy 10.1: Document observations of non-native animal species present or potentially present
within HBRA and evaluate to identify species that represent threats or potential threats to
conservation targets (“problem species”).
• Strategy 10.2: Initiate an Early Detection Rapid Response program in partnership with Lane County
Animal Services (for feral domestic animals), Oregon Dept. of Agriculture (ODA), and Oregon Dept.
of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) to report observations of problem species within the greater Mount
Pisgah area.
• Strategy 10.3: Collaborate with Lane County Animal Services, Feral Cat Coalition, Oregon Humane
Society, and related groups to initiate an educational campaign to discourage people from releasing
domestic animals into natural areas.
• Strategy 10.4: Working under the direction of ODFW and other partners, monitor abundance
(particularly for game species) and reduce or eliminate threats to conservation targets from non-
native animal species that are creating significant impacts to conservation targets. Implement
strategies to the extent practicable.
• Strategy 10.5: Collaborate with neighboring landowners (public and private), stakeholders, and
watershed councils to control problem species on adjoining lands and in the greater Mount Pisgah
area.


GOAL 11: Locate and reduce the presence of habitat-modifying, non-native plant species within each
conservation target habitat.

Conservation Targets: All conservation targets.

Issues Addressed: Goal 11 seeks to address the threat from invasion of non-native plant species
(herbaceous and woody plants). A preliminary list and profile of “habitat modifying” non-native plant
species is located in Chapter 9 (developed by the Friends of Buford Park Stewardship Technical Advisory
Committee).

• Strategy 11.1: Screen and prioritize for management all non-native species known to occur within
the HBRA using the standardized assessment tool, “Handbook for Ranking Exotic Plants for
Management and Control”, created by U.S. National Park Service (Hiebert and Stubbendieck, 1993).
• Strategy 11.2: Operate an "Early Detection - Rapid Response" program. Train volunteers to identify
and report invasive plant populations.
• Strategy 11.3: Effectively manage all target “invasive” plants along their vectors of distribution; treat
all “outlier” populations and effectively contain the “main” populations.
• Strategy 11.4: Manage “secondary invaders” (i.e. nipplewort (Lapsana communis) along edges of
roads, recreational trails, and wildlife trails.
• Strategy 11.5: Reduce populations of false brome (Brachypodium sylvaticum), Maltese star thistle
(Centaurea melitensis), spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe), Meadow knapweed (Centaurea ×
moncktonii), cotoneaster (Cotoneaster sp.), English ivy (Hedera helix), and giant knotweeds
(Polygonum cuspidatum, P. x bohemicum), to less than five percent of the 2008 area of occupation.
• Strategy 11.6: Effectively treat populations of shining geranium (Geranium lucidum), Reed canary
grass (Phalaris arundinacea), and tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea) among other species growing
within vicinity of rare, sensitive, and listed plants and animals.
• Strategy 11.7: Remove individual trees and patches of non-native fruit and nut trees, including
English hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna), apple (Malus domestica), common pear (Pyrus communis),
Myrobalan plum (Prunus cerasifera), sweet cherry (Prunus avium), hazelnut (Corylus avellana), and
walnuts (Juglans nigra and J. regia) impacting conservation target species and habitats.
• Strategy 11.8: Remove patches of non-native blackberry species (Rubus armeniacus, R.
anglocandicans, R. laciniatus, R. vestitus) and Scot’s broom (Cytisus scoparius) impacting
conservation target species and habitats.
• Strategy 11.9: Collaborate with neighboring landowners (public and private), stakeholders, and
watershed councils to proactively reduce the threat of invasive non-native species on adjoining
lands and in the broader confluence/Mount Pisgah area, with a particular focus on early invaders.
• Strategy 11.10: Partner with Friends of Buford Park, Mount Pisgah Arboretum and other partners to
fund a stewardship endowment to support ongoing management of invasive species.
• Strategy 11.11: Partner with Friends of Buford Park & Mt. Pisgah, Mount Pisgah Arboretum and
Bonneville Power Administration to remove priority invasive non-native plant species from power
line rights-of-way, and prevent the establishment of new invaders.


GOAL 12: Remove fish passage barriers from the lower mile of creeks and streams on HBRA that flow
into the Coast Fork of the Willamette River.

Conservation Targets: Creeks and streams

Issues Addressed: Goal 12 seeks to enhance viability of creeks and streams by improving fish passage, a
key ecological attribute. Threats to this conservation target include management (specifically,
obstructions to fish passage, such as poorly designed culverts).

• Strategy 12.1: Inventory each creek or stream in HBRA to identify barriers obstructing aquatic
connectivity/passage (and their impacts).
• Strategy 12.2: Where appropriate, remove human-created barriers to aquatic passage identified in
the inventory.

GOAL 13: Improve ecological health of creeks and streams.

Conservation Target: Creeks and streams

Issues Addressed: Loss of creek or stream’s ability to interact with its floodplain due to channelization,
lack of riparian vegetation, and impacts from management. Goal 13 considers the form and function of
streams in HBRA and seeks to enhance viability for creeks and streams for this “key ecological attribute.”

• Strategy 13.1: Improve 50 percent of stream miles rated “poor” to “good” condition for macro-
invertebrates.
• Strategy 13.2: Research, prioritize and begin restoration of stream reaches that have been
straightened, channelized, or dewatered. Start implementation on downstream ends where
feasible, aiming to restore functionality of entire high priority stream basins before moving to lower
priority basins.
• Strategy 13.3: Manage grazing practices near streams and wetlands to limit damage.

GOAL 14: Improve ecological health of riparian floodplain habitats.

Conservation Target: Willamette River riparian system and associated floodplains

Issues Addressed: Goal 14 seeks to enhance the viability of Willamette River riparian and floodplain
habitat by addressing the threat of loss of the river’s ability to interact with its floodplain due to
channelization. Goal 14 will also benefit nested targets and other native plants and animals that rely on
floodplains for some or all of their habitat and life history requirements.

• Strategy 14.1: Reconnect and improve function of the sloughs, oxbows and historic channels within
the contemporary floodplain.
• Strategy 14.2: Remove plugs and constructed barriers that obstruct connectivity with the river for
flows equal to or greater than bank full events.
• Strategy 14.3: Restore and connect historic alcoves, side channels, and back water sloughs to the
river.

• Strategy 14.4: Explore opportunities to collaborate with neighboring landowners (public and
private), stakeholders, and watershed councils to restore historic alcoves, side channels, and back
water sloughs that connect to the river on adjoining lands and in the greater Mount Pisgah area.

Goal 15: Manage habitats in the North Bottomlands Stewardship Zone to be mutually compatible with
recreational activities identified in the 1994 HBRA Master Plan and the recommendations of the Large
Events Task Force.

Conservation Targets: Goal 15 seeks to enhance visitor experience (specific to the North Bottomlands)
while also enhancing oak woodland, Willamette River riparian systems and associated floodplains,
upland and wet prairie.

Issues Addressed: Impacts to visitor experience, impacts from management (such as infrastructure
improvements); invasion of non-native vegetation. Goal 15 seeks to enhance visitor experience in the
North Bottomlands by enhancing habitats in a manner that accommodates more active recreational
uses (such as small events and use of the outdoor equestrian arena) through compatible conservation
actions for oak woodland, upland and wet prairie, and for Willamette River riparian systems and
associated floodplains.

• Strategy 15.1: When issuing special use permits for events, consider protocols and conditions that
minimize potential impacts to conservation targets to the maximum extent practicable.
• Strategy 15.2: Reduce the potential for the colonization of invasive plant species within the North
Bottomlands and their spread to other areas of the park.
• Strategy 15.3: Develop and appropriately site infrastructure improvements to minimize impacts to
adjacent habitats.
• Strategy 15.4: Develop projects within the North Bottomlands Stewardship Zone to highlight HBRA
conservation vision and education opportunities in a manner that is accessible to all park visitors.
• Strategy 15.5: Sustain and, if warranted, expand operation of the native plant nursery managed by
Friends of Buford Park & Mt. Pisgah to provide native plant materials (seeds and plants) for
restoration projects in HBRA .
• Strategy 15.6: Manage agricultural activities so they are compatible with recreation and
conservation goals.
• Strategy 15.7: Restore a configuration of habitats in the North Bottomlands that is compatible with
and complementary to the planned Desired Future Conditions for habitat restoration in adjacent
portions of The Nature Conservancy’s Willamette Confluence Preserve.
• Strategy 15.8: Work with partners to identify ecologically appropriate corridors to extend the trail
system to afford access along the northwest boundaries of the park and to the Willamette
Confluence Preserve if (and when) it becomes open to the public.


• Hiebert, R.D. and J. Stubbendieck, 1993. Handbook for Ranking Exotic Plants for Management
and Control. U.S. National Park Service, Natural Resources Report NPS/NRMWRO/NRR-93/08.


Chapter 7: Enhancing Visitor Experience While
Managing Habitats
7.1 Recreational and Educational Values of Healthy Native Habitats

Howard Buford Recreation Area is the most visited park in the Lane County park system. The park
annually receives an estimated 400,000 visits by people who enjoy its diverse natural beauty. There is
also diversity in how these hundreds of thousands of visitors use the park. Every time a visitor enters
HBRA, he or she has an opportunity to enjoy and learn about these diverse and valuable native habitats.
• Many park users hike or ride horses to the summit, enjoying vistas of the Willamette Valley to the
west and the snow-capped Cascades to the east. The open character of prairie and savanna habitat
makes these views possible.
• Others enjoy a leisurely walk on the level trails along the Coast Fork Willamette River in the Mount
Pisgah Arboretum or along the South Bottomlands trails.
• Some people seek vigorous exercise, training daily with hikes or runs on the park’s 27-mile trail
network, winding through forest, savanna, and prairie habitats.
• Other visitors come to enjoy the remarkable birds and other wildlife that inhabit HBRA. The park’s
habitat diversity supports more than 120 bird species, and Mount Pisgah is recognized by the
Audubon Society as an official Important Bird Area.

• Spring wildflower displays are spectacular. Artists, photographers, botanists, and naturalists find
inspiration in the myriad wildlife and botanical species and varied landscapes present in the park.
Each year, thousands of visitors attend Mount Pisgah Arboretum’s Spring Wildflower and Fall
Mushroom Festivals.
• Mount Pisgah Arboretum has developed and is implementing a comprehensive interpretive plan for
its 209-acre lease area. The Friends and Lane County Parks Division support that effort and have
collaborated with the Arboretum to develop interpretive sign standards for all of HBRA. The goal is
to enable park visitors to more easily learn about native habitats throughout the park, no matter
what their primary reason for visiting.
• HBRA also serves as an educational resource for children and adults from pre-school through
graduate school and beyond. Whether enrolled in formal classes or out of personal interest, many
visitors study the diverse plants, animals, and habitats in the park. By participating in projects led by
the Arboretum or the Friends, school groups and university classes regularly visit the park to learn
about botany, wildlife, natural history, and natural resource management. Mount Pisgah Arboretum
provides environmental education programs that teach thousands of school children and hundreds
of adults each year about the park’s native fauna and flora. The restoration activities and ongoing
ecosystem management envisioned in this plan will complement these environmental education
curricula by providing additional important natural resource learning opportunities.
• Volunteers form the common thread that creates and connects so much of the recreation,
education, and community value that HBRA provides. They are key to Mount Pisgah Arboretum’s
environmental education program, and also help care for the Arboretum’s trails and natural
habitats. Volunteers are the backbone of the Friends native plant nursery. Friends volunteer Trails
Committee is crucial to trail planning, design, and maintenance on several of the park’s most
popular hiking routes. Friends and Arboretum volunteers are an essential complement to County
and both non-profits’ staffs, who together maintain and restore natural habitats throughout the
park.

7.2 Balancing Visitor experience with Habitat Management
A key purpose of this Habitat Management Plan is to enhance visitor experience while protecting and
improving habitat for plants, fish and wildlife. This plan’s Goals 1, 2, and 15 (see Chapter 6) seek to
sustain and improve recreation by:
• Improving visitor experience at HBRA
• Increasing public understanding and appreciation for “the unique qualities that make HBRA and the
broader Mount Pisgah area a priority for conservation” and,
• Expanding habitat management activities in the North Bottomlands Stewardship Zone that are
compatible with existing recreational activities as identified within the HBRA Master Plan and other
applicable documents such as the Large Event Task Force recommendations.

By raising awareness of the regional importance of habitats within HBRA, we expect visitors will
increasingly choose to tread thoughtfully and lightly on the park. In addition, carefully designed park
infrastructure, such as trails that are properly located and constructed, will help minimize the impacts to
habitats from park visitors.
7.2.1 Suitable locations for interpretive signage

Interpretive signage can help increase public understanding and appreciation for the park’s “unique
qualities,” but too many signs far from the trailheads would degrade the “wild backcountry” feel of the

park’s trails that visitors value. This plan calls for additional interpretation at each of the three main
trailheads. Existing kiosks may be used or new signage installed.

Signage to interpret habitat restoration is valuable to help the public understand habitat management.
Outside of the Arboretum, this plan calls for temporary signage (posted for up to 3 years) along trails to
explain the purpose and benefits of habitat management actions, such as ecological burns, vegetation
management, or wetland restoration.

Mount Pisgah Arboretum, in its role as an educational hub for the Mount Pisgah area, has initiated
implementation of its own comprehensive interpretive program. The Arboretum interpretive plan
envisions permanent interactive interpretive exhibits at each of eight designated habitat "eco-nodes"
within its lease area that exemplify the park's varied native ecosystems.
7.2.2 Suitable locations for benches and view points

The summit of Mt. Pisgah is the most common destination to take in sweeping views of the Southern
Willamette Valley. Visitors to the summit, as well as other areas of the park, perch upon rock outcrops,
low hanging branches, or on the ground to take in the view or simply stop and rest as there are few
benches within the park outside of the Arboretum. The sheer number of people who visit the park
warrants installation of additional benches in carefully selected sites as a means to reduce the impacts
of trampling habitat as well as disturbance to wildlife and other users.

Carefully located benches and viewpoints can foster a sense of place in HBRA. For some visitors, to
spend time in the outdoors represents an opportunity to get away from the hustle and bustle of one’s
daily routine. It is important that the location of benches and viewpoints do not dominate the adjacent
landscape. The view, that may frame points of interest near and far away, should be structured in a
manner that screens the viewer from other points in the trail as well as to the area beyond the trail.

As with interpretive signage, benches located far from trailheads and the most popular trails will
degrade the “wild backcountry” feel of the park’s trails. Benches are most appropriate on the western
side of Mt. Pisgah. Along trails on the eastern and southern slopes, selected viewpoints can be identified
where natural objects, such as boulders or fallen logs, can provide sitting places. But otherwise
viewpoint development on the east and south side of the park will be limited to unobtrusive pruning or
clearing of vegetation to frame viewing opportunities.

In particular it should be noted that the view from the summit westward is being increasingly obscured
by Douglas-fir trees that have established on the upper summit ridge in the past 25 years. Removal of
these trees will be necessary to preserve existing views, and will also provide benefits to the existing
prairie vegetation.
7.2.3 Dogs On Leash

Many park visitors enjoy bringing their dogs to the HBRA, whether they hike to the summit, stroll
through the old fields and prairie in the bottomlands, or swim in the Willamette River on a hot summer
day.

No matter the destination, it’s important that dog owners manage their dog responsibly so that
everyone can enjoy the park and its trails. Current policy requires all dogs within the park to be under

voice control by their owners, and within the Arboretum and on Trails 1 and 2 dogs are required to be
on a leash not more than 6 feet in length.

Unfortunately, with these park rules in place, off-leash dogs have been a frequent source of conflict for
park users for many decades. This plan calls for developing a new policy for dog use in HBRA, possibly in
conjunction with a future update to the 1994 HBRA Master Plan, which would require dogs to be kept
on leash in all parts of the park except for designated places and trails where they may be off leash. The
reasons for developing a new policy are many, including:
1. Off-leash dogs can impact visitor experience, jump on other visitors, including children, and can
cause accidents or injuries.
2. Off-leash dogs scare and/or chase or otherwise harass wildlife
3. For people who are afraid of or uncomfortable around dogs, an encounter with an off-leash dog
can be unpleasant or downright terrifying.
4. Off-leash dogs can instigate aggression or fights with leashed dogs.
5. If an off-leash dog causes a serious issue, the dog owner could be held liable in a lawsuit or face
criminal charges, or even loss of the pet.
6. When off-leash, dogs can encounter or ingest harmful substances.
7. Dogs may transfer irritating poison oak oils to owners or others park users.

Lane County Parks and planning partners will engage in a public involvement process to obtain feedback
from the entire spectrum of park users, including dog owners and non-dog owners, to identify
appropriate areas of the park to allow off-leash dog use, without significantly impacting habitat values
or the visitor experience for non-dog owners.

7.3 Habitat Stewardship Zones
The 1994 HBRA Master Plan (p. 33) designated six management “Zones and Elements”, including:
• North Bottomlands
• Main Entrance
• Main Parking Area
• Mount Pisgah Arboretum
• South Meadow, and
• Mount Pisgah Trail System (the entire hillside except for an upland portion of the Arboretum).

The South Meadow Zone has been re-named here as the “South Bottomlands”, since this zone contains
a variety of habitat types. In addition, the “Main Entrance” is consolidated here into the North
Bottomlands Zone, and the “Main Parking Area” is consolidated into the Mount Pisgah Arboretum.

To facilitate habitat stewardship, as shown in Figure 7.1, this management plan further divides the
largest zone, the “Mount Pisgah Trail System,” into four smaller stewardship zones: Western Uplands,
Southern Uplands, Eastern Uplands, and Northern Forest. Each of the four new stewardship zones are
further subdivided into a set a subordinate management units.


Figure 7-1: HBRA Stewardship Zones Map

7.4 Brief Descriptions of Stewardship Zones

North Bottomlands Stewardship Zone (167 acres)
This zone encompasses the floodplain of the Coast Fork of the Willamette River at the far northwest
corner of the park. The zone’s habitat includes various wetland and riparian woodlands and prairies.
Part of Thompson Slough, a forested old river meander/seasonal wetland, flows into the Willamette
Confluence Preserve. Park facilities located within this stewardship zone include the horse arena, the
Native Plant Nursery, the Kienzle house and barn, and the North Trailhead/Parking Lot. These facilities
support a variety of recreational uses, consistent with direction provided in the 1994 HBRA Master Plan.
This zone provides opportunities for enhancing and restoring a diversity of riparian and floodplain plant
communities. Here, habitat management will be compatible with and enhance recreational uses. For
example, removal of blackberry in riparian forests will make the areas more accessible and scenic if
additional trails are developed in the future.

Mount Pisgah Arboretum (209 acres)
Lane County leases 209 acres within HBRA to Mount Pisgah Arboretum, an independent non-profit
501c3 organization founded in 1973. The Arboretum was involved in the original justifications and
development of the Park, and has been an active partner with Lane County since HBRA was established.
The Arboretum’s stewardship zone lies immediately adjacent to the Coast Fork of the Willamette River
and encompasses portions of the west slope of Mount Pisgah. This area contains many diverse
Willamette Valley plant communities, including oak savanna, oak woodland, Douglas-fir forest, incense
cedar forests, mixed forests, riparian forests, riverine wetlands, and grassy meadows.

Mount Pisgah Arboretum is responsible for habitat management in this stewardship zone. Over more
than four decades, the Arboretum has worked to enhance its native ecosystems by controlling invasive
plant species and restoring native habitats. In doing so, the Arboretum seeks to actively engage the
public in hands-on stewardship, and to minimize the use of herbicides.

The primary purpose of Mount Pisgah Arboretum is nature education, and habitat management efforts
are aimed at providing dynamic outdoor classrooms for teaching about local ecology. The Arboretum
offers a wide range of both structured educational programs and informal learning opportunities for
visitors of all ages, and is currently developing a series of interactive nature exhibits.
As one of the Park’s busier access points, the Arboretum maintains more than seven miles of all-season
trails as well as public restrooms and drinking water, parking areas, a picnic area, a covered pavilion, a
small visitor center, and on-site offices. The Arboretum’s Site Manager lives on-site and serves as HBRA
caretaker for Lane County Parks.

South Bottomlands Stewardship Zone (155 acres)
This zone encompasses the floodplain of the Coast Fork of the Willamette River upstream and south of
the Mount Pisgah Arboretum Lease Area. The zone includes a mosaic of restored prairie and savanna,
oak woodlands, riparian forest, and shrub thickets. It features enhanced connections between the river
and the floodplain along a restored side channel and associated backwater. Miles of fencing were
removed and replaced with a network of mowed and graveled trails. Wildlife observation is encouraged
at two developed viewing points, including a ‘wildlife viewing blind’ that provides opportunities to
observe beavers, birds, deer, turtles and other species of interest.


Western Uplands Stewardship Zone (493 acres)
This zone encompasses much of the west-facing slope of Mount Pisgah, from the Arboretum boundary
uphill to the main summit ridgeline. This is the most visible side of the mountain to approaching visitors,
and its condition impacts the experience of park visitors as they first enter the park.

Period of
Western Uplands Stewardship Zone Intensive
Management Units Restoration Acreage
BPA North: Santiam-Alvey 2023 - 2027 16.5
BPA South: Marion-Alvey + Lookout Point-Alvey 2018 - 2022 8.9
Bridge Bowl 2019 - 2022 62.89
Fir Rdige 2023 - 2024 46.09
Lazuli 2024 40.88
Spring Box 2018 43.34
Swing Hill 2019 - 2022 120.89
Upper Canyon Creek 2023 - 2024 84.7
Vesper 2021 - 2022 44.93

Southern Uplands Stewardship Zone (597 acres)
This zone is dominated by oak savanna, oak woodland and upland prairie. Much of the park’s buckbrush
chaparral is found within this zone as well as some of the most intact prairie and savanna habitats in the
park.

Period of
Southern Uplands Stewardship Zone Intensive
BPA: Marion-Alvey + Lookout Point-Alvey 2018 - 2022 16.57
BuckBrush 2025 - 2027 164.67
Fawn Lily 2025 - 2027 138.48
Meadowlark South 2019 120.64


Eastern Uplands Stewardship Zone (260 acres)
This zone extends from wetland prairie and wetland shrub habitats located at the foot of Mount Pisgah,
uphill to include both upland savanna and woodland habitats. This zone supports most of the wet prairie
within the park as well as extensive ponderosa pine stands.

Period of
Eastern Uplands Stewardship Zone Intensive
BPA: Marion-Alvey 2018 - 2019 6.75
Meadowlark East 2018 - 2019 145
Ponderosa 2018 - 2020 110

Northern Forest Stewardship Zone (336 acres)
This zone includes a large, mostly forested area on the northeast slope of Mount Pisgah that will largely
be managed as conifer woodland or forest. This zone has a mix of Douglas-fir, bigleaf maple and grand
fir overstory, with lesser amounts of and other tree species. Pockets of Oregon white oak communities
are also found within this zone in areas of shallow soils. Although not a focal conservation target in this
plan, conifer forest, which has not declined in acreage in the Willamette Valley, provides habitat for a
variety of native plant and wildlife species, some of which are not found in other habitat types.

Period of
Northern Forest Stewardship Zone Intensive
BPA: Marion-Alvey 2018 - 2019 3.55
BPA: Santiam-Alvey 2023 - 2027 3.85
BugBane 2023 - 2024 75.05
Eagle's Lair 2028 - 2029 49.69
Head Waters 2029 - 2030 196.29

Park Facilities (Main Entrance, Roads, Parking Lots, Trails, Utility Corridors)
Some of these infrastructure elements are present in each of the stewardship zones. In general, this
plan’s best management practices provide guidance for how to manage these infrastructure elements to
protect the conservation targets, including visitor experience.


Buford Recreation Area Master Plan.
• Bend Park & Recreation District. Dogs in Parks (web site reference).
www.bendparksandrec.org/parks__trails/dogs_in_parks/


Chapter 8: Fire as a Management Tool

8.1 The Historic Role of Fire in Chaparral, Prairie, Savanna, & Woodland Habitats
8.1.1 Historic Climate Variations

Significant portions of Oregon's ecoregions support habitats that are dependent on fire for their
continued health and survival. Climate conditions approximately 5,000 to 8,000 years ago that were
warmer and drier than today likely influenced the establishment of prairie and savanna habitats in the
Willamette Valley ecoregion. As the climate subsequently cooled, frequent low intensity wildland fires
maintained extensive prairies and savannas, which would otherwise have declined in the absence of fire.
While some fires may have been the result of lightning strikes, deliberate ignition by the indigenous
peoples of the area as a land management practice is likely to have been an important ecological
influence (Walsh et al. 2010; Walsh et al. 2015).
8.1.2 Observations of Early Explorers

The first Euro-American explorers and settlers who arrived in the Willamette Valley in the early 1800's
described the Willamette Valley as having extensive areas of prairie and oak savanna. Land surveys
conducted by the General Land Office of the US Government in the 1850's documented that about one
million acres of the Willamette Valley was prairie, and 500,000 acres were savanna (Christy and
Alverson, 2011; Appendix B). These native prairie and savanna habitats have been greatly reduced in
extent due to agriculture, grazing of domestic livestock, residential and urban development, and
expansion of forest vegetation into former prairies. Only a few thousand acres of high quality native
prairie and savanna are currently known to survive in the Willamette Valley, a reduction of 98 percent or
more from the original extent of prairie and savanna.

Thus, it was a "natural" landscape shaped (largely) by human-set fires that the first Euro-American
explorers and settlers encountered in the early 1800's (Habeck 1961, Johannessen et al 1970, Towle
1974). Morris (1934), Johannessen (1971) and Boyd (1986) document this practice through reviews of
the early Euro-American explorers’ and missionaries’ journals (David Douglas-1826, John Work-1834, C.
Wilkes-1845, B. Hines-1881, etc.). These records report that fires were set annually in late summer and
early fall, and covered extensive portions of the Willamette Valley. The main difficulty with historic
observations and descriptions is that they do not clearly describe how often fires returned to any
specific location, and that is a pertinent question that remains to be answered.

Drastic population declines resulting from introduced diseases, and ultimately, the removal of the
Kalapuya Indians to the Grand Ronde Reservation halted wide scale burning in the Willamette Valley in
the 1830s and 1840s. Without fire, wet prairies that have been left undisturbed have in many cases
gradually changed into willow and ash forests, while the drier prairies have converted to oak woodlands
and maple and Douglas fir forests.


8.1.3 Cultural Use of Fire as a Management Tool
The Winefelly group of the Kalapuya people (a primary tribe in the Willamette Valley), who spoke the
Central Kalapuya dialect, were the primary native inhabitants of the Mount Pisgah/Confluence area. The
Mount Pisgah area was likely used for seasonal hunting and food plant gathering activities.

Because of the Willamette Falls at Oregon City, the Willamette was not historically a major salmon
stream, and the Kalapuya did not utilize salmon as a food source to the extent that tribes along the
Columbia River did. Instead, the Kalapuya, hunted game such as deer and elk, and gathered food plants
from the native flora. The prairies provided the majority of their food plants, including camas (Camassia
spp.) bulbs, yampah (Perideridia spp.) roots, and tarweed (Madia spp.) seeds.

Though they were not farmers in the conventional sense, the Kalapuya used fire to maintain prairie
habitats for valued food plants, increase production of native nut and fruit trees, and facilitate harvest
of food plants such as tarweed. In addition, they may have found fire useful in hunting game, by
attracting animals to browse on the fresh green growth that emerges soon after a fire (Boyd 1986).
During the many millennia that the Kalapuya subjected the Willamette Valley to frequent low intensity
fires, a diverse flora and fauna evolved that had appropriate adaptations to avoid, withstand, or even
depend upon fire. In some cases, these were species occurring nowhere else in the world except the
Willamette Valley.

From the mid-1800s, settlers stopped the periodic wild land fires that jeopardized homes and towns and
generally discontinued the practice of prescribed burning. Cessation of frequent fires has resulted in
significant alteration of habitats and landscapes even if they have not been converted to economic uses
such as agriculture and urbanization.

For instance, fire suppression resulted in the development of “closed form” oak forests, and
consequently closed form oak habitat (where the tree canopy is continuous) is now relatively more
abundant than the open grown trees that were once common within the Willamette Valley’s savannas
(Towle 1982). The increased density and extent of conifers such as Douglas fir, which expands in the
absence of periodic fire, has also resulted in loss of prairie and oak savanna habitat. The fast growing
conifers overtop, shade out and eventually kill the oak trees in a decades-long process of ecological
succession. Evidence for this process can be seen in historical aerial photographs of HBRA that go back
to 1936 (see Appendix C); even since the park was first established in 1972, significant ecological
changes in habitat types have occurred (see photo comparison on the cover).
8.1.4 Ecological Fire as a Habitat Management Tool

Since 1999, ecological burning has been used as a management tool in HBRA. Based on careful planning
and preparation, prescribed ecological burns are implemented in specific areas of the park to help
create and maintain prairie, savanna, and woodland habitat. These burns are conducted in collaboration
with the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Forest Service, and The Nature Conservancy. All burns are implemented in
compliance with Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA) permit regulations.


8.1.5 Ecological benefits of frequent low intensity fire
Having established that fires likely were a significant feature of the landscape prior to Euro-American
settlement, scientists began developing hypotheses regarding the specific roles that fire plays in
maintaining prairie and
savanna habitats.
Historical analyses of
vegetation change at
individual sites led to
the development of a
number of hypotheses,
including:
• Fires occurring at
frequent intervals
maintained open
prairie habitats and
prevented
colonization of
trees and shrubs on
sites where they
would be able to
occur if fire was
excluded; A 1999 wildfire (pictured above) closed HBRA. Fires in prairies and
• Many native savannas usually burn with low intensity and cause little damage to native
herbaceous prairie forbs or oak trees.
species may possess
tolerance or even adaptation to fire as a frequent influence; and
• Some non-native plant species, particularly those coming from regions where fires do not occur,
may be negatively affected by fire.

Thus, ecological burning can reduce cover of encroaching woody plants, enhance the populations of
native plant species, and help reduce the abundance of some undesirable non-native plants.

Experience with prescribed burning in Willamette Valley prairie and oak habitats began in the 1970s at
Finley National Wildlife Refuge, and continued in the 1980's on Corps of Engineers prairies at Fern Ridge
reservoir and BLM and Nature Conservancy land in West Eugene. Prescribed burning began in HBRA in
1999. In general, the results of the burns have supported the hypotheses listed above. Typically, new
green growth begins to sprout within two weeks after the burn; species such as tufted hairgrass
(Deschampsia cespitosa), the dominant native grass in wet prairies, grow more vigorously through the
fall and winter than in unburned areas. The following year, and often the following two years, see
increases in the flowering and seed production of many native prairie plants such as camas.

With increased flowering and seed production, the fire adapted species may gradually increase in
population size. For example, a study of the Federally listed endangered Bradshaw’s lomatium
(Lomatium bradshawii) found that within two years of a fire the populations showed an increase in
density of vegetative and reproductive plants, and demographic analyses suggest that without fire,
Bradshaw’s lomatium will not persist (Pendergrass et al., 1999, Kaye et al., 2001). In addition,

researchers have observed that some invasive plant species, such as the ox-eye daisy (Leucanthemum
vulgare), decrease in abundance in the year immediately following a fire (Nuckols et al. 2011).

Woody plants, which have encroached into these native prairie remnants, have also been negatively
affected by prescribed burns. Observations suggest that the burns are successful in killing smaller
conifers as well as seedlings of deciduous trees and shrubs. Fires also kill the above ground portions of
the majority of deciduous woody plants, which are subject to subsequent resprouting from the stump.
However, the large oaks that were historically present at low density in savannas, have thick bark and
are resistant to damage from fire (Niemiec et al., 1995). Manual or mechanical removal of woody plants
may also be needed in conjunction with prescribed burns, to help speed progress toward achieving site
management goals.
8.1.6 Potential drawbacks to ecological burning

The main drawback of prescribed burns from the point of the general public is that smoke that is
generated. While a prescribed burn may resemble a grass field burn, the amount of smoke produced by
a prescribed burn in a native prairie is much less than a burn of an equal area of grass seed field. This is
because the amount of fuel present in a grass seed field is typically two to four times greater per unit
area than in a native prairie. Prescribed burns are only conducted under atmospheric conditions that
provide for the most efficient upward dispersal of smoke. Generally small burn units also mean that the
actual length of time during which the burns occur is quite short. Risk of escape of prescribed burns is
minimized by ensuring that conditions the day of the burn are within the designed prescription, and the
personnel and equipment used to conduct the burn are sufficient and appropriately trained.
8.1.7 Wildfire versus ecological burning:

Public safety is the number one goal of wildfire management at HBRA. Unlike controlled fire used as a
management tool (ecological burns), wildfire is a significant safety threat for park patrons and
neighbors. It also has the potential for devastating impacts on important natural habitats throughout
HBRA. The most recent large wildfire in HBRA occurred in September 1999. The fire started in the Mount
Pisgah Arboretum and moved upslope toward the summit. The fire was suppressed along the summit
ridge in the Southern Uplands Stewardship Zone. 119 acres burned in total through prairie, savanna, and
woodland. Several Douglas-fir trees were killed by the fire or by subsequent fire suppression actions.
Lane County contracts with the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) for development of wildfire plans
Decades of fire suppression has resulted in larger "fuel loads" in the park's forest and woodlands. The
dense woody vegetation increases the risk of a catastrophic "crown fire" that will damage or destroy
mature oak trees and large conifers.
and wildfire control services at HBRA. Because of the threat fire poses to park visitors, as well as the
park’s location in the midst of rural residential properties, the primary objective of wildfire control is
suppression. It is important to note that much of the prairie and oak savanna restoration work identified
in this Habitat Management Plan will also serve to reduce wildfire risks in HBRA by reducing potential
fuels and reducing the likelihood of high severity wildfire. Implementation of the Habitat Management
Plan will help reduce the risk of wildfire in the years ahead. In addition, Lane County Parks and park
partners will continue to work with ODF to reduce, as much as possible, negative impacts on native
habitat caused by fire suppression activities.

8.2 Ecological Burn Strategy
Utilize ecological burning (prescribed fire) to maintain chaparral, upland and wetland prairie, savanna,
and oak woodlands following recommended fire return intervals identified for each conservation target
within Chapter VI (Goals and Objectives).
8.2.1 Implement ecological burns annually in accord with habitat management plan
• Burn 50 to 250 acres/year. (See Figure 8-1: Ecological Burn Units Map)
o Where feasible keep vehicles and equipment on designated trails and access corridors.
o Secure annual permit from Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority
§ Collaborate with Rivers to Ridges partnership to prepare and secure annual
multi-agency permit.
§ Comply with permit to minimize impact of smoke drifting into the Eugene-
Springfield metropolitan area, the City of Pleasant Hill, and the City of Oakridge.
• Coordinate all ecological burn activities with the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF).
o Utilize ecological burns to train fire suppression personnel and improve the capacity of
local forestry districts, fire protection personnel, and other natural resource agency
staff.
o Collaborate with and utilize non-ODF fire teams and other resources when available.
o Consider using contract fire crews to implement ecological burns if ODF crews are not
available and the burn’s timing is important to achieve the desired habitat outcomes.
• Provide public notice of the upcoming ecological burns.
o Post notice at trailheads and in proximity to the burn unit.
o Notify adjacent landowners of the upcoming annual ecological burn activities.
o Release Public Service Announcements in advance of implementation.
• Prepare ecological burn sites.
o Implement site preparation prescriptions in late June or early July to minimize adverse
effects to wildlife, botanical resources, and public safety (resulting from a wild land fire).
o Follow specified Best Management Practices as described in Chapter XII.
• Implement ecological burn(s)
o Lane County Parks Manager or his/her designee reviews and approves the burn plan and
coordinates with designated "burn boss" to approve ignition of the burn in HBRA.


8.2.2 Factors to consider when planning ecological burns:
• First, apply research on the effects of prescribed fire and alternate management methods on the
vegetation associated with each of the conservation targets identified for ecological burning.
o The timing of burns may affect the response of vegetation.
o When feasible, participate in and support studies to evaluate the responses of species
to fire and to evaluate the efficacy of alternative management manipulations in
stewardship efforts. These alternatives may include but are not limited to mowing with
removal of cut material, “flash grazing,” hand-removal of woody species, and no
manipulation.
• Second, evaluate populations of nonnative plants occurring within each management unit where
ecological burns will occur.
o Implement site preparation strategies to neutralize the threat posed by those species
that have the capability to change the species composition and structure of the
conservation target if left untreated.
§ Site preparation and associated stewardship tasks may occur for several years
preceding implementation of the ecological burn to provide adequate control.
• Third, consider smoke-management rules and variable weather conditions when planning and
implementing ecological burns.
o Give preference to scheduling burns during the season when fires most commonly
occurred within the given conservation target.
o If appropriate, implement burns during a non-traditional season to minimize adverse
impacts to air quality, such as during a cold, dry period in winter.


• Boyd, R.T. 1999. Strategies of Indian burning in the Willamette Valley. In: Boyd, R.T. (Ed.), Indians,
Fire, and the Land in the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, pp. 94–138.
• Christy, J.A. and E.R Alverson. 2011. Historical Vegetation of the Willamette Valley, Oregon, circa
1850. Northwest Science 85(2):93-107.
• Douglas, D. 1959. Journal Kept by David Douglas During His Travels in North America 1823-1827.
Antiquarian Press, New York.
• Habeck, J.R. 1961. The original vegetation of the mid-Willamette Valley, Oregon. Northwest Science
35:65-77.
• Hines, G. 1881. Wild Life in Oregon. Hurst, New York.
• Johannessen, C.L., W.A. Davenport, A. Millet, and S. McWilliams. 1971. The vegetation of the
Willamette Valley. Ann. Assoc. Amer. Geogr. 61:286-302.
• Kaye, T.N., K.L. Pendergrass, K. Finley, and J.B. Kauffman. 2001. The effect of fire on the population
viability of an endangered prairie plant. Ecol. App. 11(5):1366-1380.
• Morris, W. 1936. Forest fires in western Oregon and Washington. Oregon Hist. Quart. 35:313-339.
• Niemieck, S.S, G.R. Ahrens, S. Willits, and D.E. Hibbs. 1995. Hardwoods of the Pacific Northwest.
Research Contribution 8, Forest Research laboratory, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
• Nuckols, J.L, N.T. Rudd, E.R. Alverson, and G.A. Voss. 2011. Comparison of Burning and Mowing
Treatments in a Remnant Willamette Valley Wet Prairie, Oregon, 2001–2007. Northw. Sci.
85(2):303-316.

• Pendergrass, K. L., P. M. Miller, J. B. Kauffman, and T. N. Kaye. 1999. The role of prescribed burning
in maintenance of an endangered plant species, Lomatium bradshawii. Ecol. App. 9:1420–1429.
• Towle, J.C. 1982. Changing geography of the Willamette Valley woodlands. Oregon Hist. Quart.
83:66-87.
• Walsh, M.K, J. R. Marlon, S. J. Goring, K. J. Brown and D. G. Gavin. 2015. A regional perspective on
Holocene fire-climate-human interactions in the Pacific Northwest of North America. Ann. Assoc.
Amer. Geogr. 105(6):1135-1157.
• Walsh, M.K., C. Whitlock, and P.J. Bartlein. 2010. 1200 years of fire and vegetation history in the
Willamette Valley, Oregon and Washington, reconstructed using high-resolution macroscopic
charcoal and pollen analysis. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 297: 273-289.
• Wilkes C. 1845. Narrative of the United States Expedition during the Years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841,
1842. Vol. 5, Lea and Blanchard, Philadelphia, Pa. 558 p.
• Work, J. 1923. Journey from Fort Vancouver to the Umpqua River and return in 1834. Oregon Hist.
Quarterly 24:238-268..



Chapter 9: Management of Non-Native Invasive Species
9.1 What is a Non-Native Invasive Species?

The U.S. Department of Agriculture defines "invasive species" as:
• non-native (or alien) species to the ecosystem under consideration, and
• if established, causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human
health.
Invasive species can be plants, animals, insects and other organisms (e.g., microbes). Only a subset of
documented non-native species are considered invasive, due to their negative impacts to native species
and ecosystems. Human actions are the primary means of invasive species introductions.

9.2 Non-Native Species at HBRA

Over 200 species of wild plants that have been documented at HBRA are considered to be non-native
species and did not occur in Oregon prior to the arrival of Euro-American settlers. These species were
either intentionally or accidentally introduced to the area after the mid-1800’s.

Some non-native plant species provide resources to native wildlife, including shelter and food. However,
the invasive non-native plant species that are prioritized for management in this plan substantially alter
habitat structure or displace native species that in many cases provide greater habitat function for
wildlife. When certain non-native plants are generally acknowledged as not belonging in the parks’
landscape, it can be detrimental to the visitor experience if the plants are highly visible, creating an
overall impression of a lack of stewardship of the park. A particularly visible example are large patches
of non-native blackberries seen covering the open slopes of the mountain and infesting the floodplain
woodlands.

Fewer than 25 percent of the 200+ non-native plant species in HBRA are identified here as priorities for
management because they can significantly degrade habitat functions and values. Strategy 11.1
references a methodology that can identify the invasive plant species that are priorities for management
(Hiebert and Stubbendieck, 1993).

The goal of invasive plant management is not just to eliminate problematic non-native plants, but to also
to promote and maintain high quality native plant communities. Managing invasive non-native plant
species at HBRA provides opportunities, on a park-wide scale, to gradually replace any ecological
functions or resources provided by non-native species with the increased abundance and function of
native species.

In most cases, complete eradication of a particular non-native species is not feasible. Rather, the
objective is to substantially reduce their ecological influence. Complete eradication of particular invasive
non-native plant species will be sought only in a select few cases where the species has established only
recently, or is present only in small numbers. As such, early detection and treatment of new invaders is
perhaps the most important step in the management of invasive non-native plants.


Non-native animals can also have negative impacts on native species and habitats, through predation,
competition, or direct habitat disturbance. For example, feral cats may hunt native birds in a natural
area, which is particularly problematic for ground nesting grassland birds. Non-native bullfrogs can
swallow a rare native western pond turtle hatchling. Managing non-native animals can be challenging
due to the simple fact that animals are mobile compared to a plant, which once located can be treated
by manual removal, mowing to interrupt seed maturation, etc.

9.3 Problematic Native Species

Native species can also cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. For example,
poison oak, a native plant, is a common associate of the plant communities that compose each of the
Conservation Targets. However, poison oak may cause mild to significant harm to human health. For
that reason, this Habitat Management Plan recommends the Best Management Practice of clearing
poison oak along trails.

Over time, native woody species such as Douglas-fir trees can overtop, shade out and kill oak trees in
rare oak woodlands and savannas. For the purpose of this plan, native species that expand into
conservation target habitats are referred to as “encroaching” species to distinguish them from exotic
“invasive” species.

9.4 Management of Invasive Non-Native Species in the HBRA

Efforts to manage exotic invasive species in the HBRA will follow the principles of Integrated Pest
Management, which utilizes a variety of methods (manual, mechanical, chemical) to achieve the best
result and minimize environmental impact.
Invasive species are considered in two categories:
• species known to occur within the HBRA, and
• species that do not occur in the HBRA but are known to occur in other areas of Lane County, in
the State of Oregon, or in the Pacific Northwest.

9.5 Integrated Pest Management

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an approach to reduce or eliminate a wide spectrum of noxious
flora and fauna utilizing a combination of common-sense practices. IPM fuses a diversity of pest
management methods and strategies (identified in the Stewardship Tool Box, Chapter XI), describes an
organism’s life history and ecological context, and takes into account the most recent scientific research
to manage populations of targeted pests in a cost-effective and environmentally sensitive manner. As
outlined by the US Environmental Protection Agency, IPM practitioners follow a four-tiered approach to
management of noxious organisms.

1. Set Action Thresholds: Identify the parameters for which a population of introduced organisms
occurring within the ecoregion or ecosystem under management will be tolerated. If the size of the
population exceeds this outside limit, treatment actions are initiated. The threshold at which pests
become an economic threat is critical to guide future pest treatment decisions.

2. Monitor and Identify Pests: IPM programs work to monitor for pests and identify them accurately,
so that appropriate treatment decisions can be made in conjunction with action thresholds.

3. Prevention: IPM programs seek to prevent pests from becoming a threat while minimizing risk to
people or the environment.

4. Treatment: Once monitoring, identification, and action thresholds indicate that pest treatment is
required and preventive methods are no longer effective or available, IPM programs then evaluate
the proper method(s) both for effectiveness and risk. Effective, less risky treatment methods are
chosen first, including highly targeted chemicals, such as pheromones to disrupt pest mating, or
mechanical methods, such as mowing, trapping or weeding. If further monitoring, identifications
and action thresholds indicate that less risky methods are not working or are not feasible, then
additional methods would be employed, such as targeted spraying of pesticides. Broadcast spraying
of non-specific pesticides is a last resort.

For invasive non-native species such as non-native blackberries, which have been well established in
the park for many years, reducing their abundance to acceptable levels is a major endeavor that will
require substantial funding and concerted effort. For cases such as these, treatment is often best
conducted (and funded) in conjunction with other habitat restoration efforts. Treatment should also
prioritize important visitor use areas (such as trail corridors and viewpoints), outlier patches, and
areas of high quality habitat that currently have minimal levels of infestation.

9.6 Early Detection and Rapid Response: Prevention and Suppression

of “New” Invasive Species
Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR) seeks to prevent establishment and spread of new noxious
species introductions before they become widespread. EDRR is the most cost effective and
environmentally benign program to successfully manage threats to the viability of the conservation
targets from invasive species within HBRA. If new invasive noxious species are left unmanaged,
economic losses will exponentially exceed the present costs of eradication or containment. The EDRR
strategy seeks to:

• Identify new invaders prior to widespread establishment or introduction.
• Eradicate or contain new invading animals and weeds.
• Increase awareness of new invaders with partners and public.

Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR) is a primary strategy of the Oregon Department of
Agriculture’s Noxious Weed Program. Weeds are listed and targeted for early detection and rapid
response activities. The goal is to prevent their introduction or eradicate them before they become
widespread, or to contain limited populations to prevent their widespread occurrence in Oregon.


9.7 Invasive Species Lists
The following lists were formulated with consideration of Oregon Department of Agriculture (State
Weed Board) lists of noxious invasive weeds and animals as well as information from the Oregon
Department of Fish & Wildlife. The lists below should be reviewed and updated at least every three
years in response to monitoring for new invasive plants that may appear in the park.

Figure 9-1: Invasive Plants Known to Occur in the HBRA
Herbaceous Plants:
Carduus pycnocephalus
Italian thistle
Carduus tenuiflorus Slender thistle
Centaurea × moncktonii Meadow knapweed
Centaurea melitensis Maltese star thistle
Cirsium arvense Canada thistle
Cirsium vulgare Bull thistle
Conium maculatum Poison hemlock
Convolvulus arvensis Bindweed
Datura stramonium Jimson weed
Daucus carota Queen Anne’s lace
Digitalis purpurea Foxglove
Dipsacus fullonum Teasel
Geranium lucidum Shining geranium
Geranium robertianum Herb Robert
Geranium spp.(several other non-native species occur within HBRA) Crane’s bill geranium
Heracleum mantegazzianum Giant hogweed
Hypericum perforatum St. John’s wort
Lactuca serriola Prickly thistle
Lapsana communis Nipplewort
Leucanthemum vulgare Ox-eye daisy
Melissa officinalis Lemon balm
Mentha pulegium Pennyroyal
Parentucellia viscosa Yellow glandweed
Phytolacca americana Pokeweed
Polygonum x bohemicum, P. japonicum, P. sachalinense Giant knotweeds
Ranunculus ficaria Lesser celandine
Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup
Rumex crispus Curly dock
Senecio jacobaea Tansy ragwort
Silybum marianum Blessed milk thistle
Sonchus spp. (several species occur within HBRA) Sow thistle
Trifolium spp.(several non-native species occur within HBRA) Clover
Verbascum blattaria Moth mullein
Verbascum thapsus Mullein


Grasses:
Agrostis capillaris
Bentgrass
Aegilops cylindrical Jointed goatgrass
Agropyron repens Quackgrass
Arrhenatuerum elatius Tall oatgrass
Avena fatua Wild oat
Brachypodium sylvaticum False brome
Cynosurus echinatus Hedgehog dogged tail grass
Phalaris arundinacea Reed canarygrass
Taeniatherum caput-medusae Medusahead rye
Shrubs, Trees, and Vines:

Cotoneaster spp. Cotoneaster
Crataegus monogyna English hawthorn
Cytisus scoparius Scot's broom
Hedera hibernica Atlantic ivy
Hedera helix English Ivy
Ilex aquifolium Holly
Juglans nigra Black walnut
Juglans regia English walnut
Malus domestica Apple (domestic)
Photinia serratifolia Chinese photinia
Prunus avium Cherry (domestic)
Prunus cerasifera Cherry plum
Prunus domestica Plum (domestic)
Pyrus communis Pear (domestic)
Rosa rubiginosa (R. eglanteria) Sweetbriar rose
Rosa multiflora Multi-flowered rose
Rubus anglocandicans English blackberry
Rubus armeniacus Armenian blackberry
Rubus laciniatus Evergreen blackberry
Rubus vestitus Velvet blackberry
Ulmus procera English elm
Vinca major Greater periwinkle
Vinca minor Lesser periwinkle


Figure 9-2: Non-Native Invasive Plants Not Currently Known to Occur in the HBRA (Watch List)
Early detection and monitoring efforts should be alert to these potential “new arrivals” at HBRA.
Herbaceous Plants:
Aegopodium podagraria
Goutweed
Alliaria petiolata Garlic mustard
Anchusa officinalis Common bugloss
Arum italicum Italian lords and ladies
Centaurea diffusa Diffuse knapweed
Centaurea solstitialis Yellow starthistle
Centaurea stoebe Spotted knapweed
Chaerophyllum temulum Rough chervil
Cyperus esculentus Yellow nutsedge
Echium plantagineum Paterson’s curse
Foeniculum vulgare Fennel
Geum urbanum Herb Bennett
Hieracium aurantiacum Orange hawkweed
Hieracium floribundum Yellow hawkweed
Hieracium pilosella Mouse-ear hawkweed
Hydrilla verticillata Waterthyme
Impatiens capensis Orange jewelweed
Impatiens glandulifera Policeman’s helmet
Iris pseudacorus Yellow flag iris
Lamiastrum galeobdolon Yellow archangel
Lathyrus latifolius Everlasting pea
Lathyrus sylvestris Flat peavine
Linaria vulgaris Yellow toadflax
Lotus corniculatus Birdsfoot trefoil
Lotus uliginosus Greater birdsfoot trefoil
Ludwigia hexapetala. Willow primrose
Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife
Myriophyllum aquatica Parrot’s feather
Nymphoides peltata Yellow floating heart
Pentaglottis sempervirens Evening bugloss
Picris echioides Bristly oxtongue
Polygonum polystachyum (Persicaria wallachii) Himalayan knotweed
Potentilla recta Sulfur cinquefoil
Soliva sessilis Lawn burrweed
Tribulus terrestris Puncturevine
Valerianella eriocarpa Italian Cornsalad

Grasses:
Eragrostis curvula
Weeping lovegrass
Glyceria declinata Waxy mannagrass
Holcus mollis Creeping velvetgrass
Phalaris aquatica Harding grass
Stipa tenuissima Mexican feather grass
Shrubs and Trees:

Acer platanoides Norway maple
Aesculus hippocastanum Horse chestnut
Ailanthus altissima Tree of heaven
Buddleja davidii (B.variabilis) Butterfly bush
Clematis vitalba Old man’s beard
Cytisus striatus Portugese broom
Daphne laureola Spurge laurel
Elaeagnus umbellata Autumn olive
Genista monspessulana French broom
Juniperus virginiana Eastern Juniper
Lonicera maackii Amur honeysuckle
Prunus laurocerasus English Laurel
Pueraria lobata Kudzu
Robinia pseudoacacia Black locust
Ulex europaeus Gorse
Viburnum opulus var. opulus Snowball bush

Figure 9-3: Documented or Potential Harmful Non-Native Animals of Howard Buford Recreation Area
Actions to reduce the presence of animal species that impact native wildlife should be explored.
Non-Native Animals documented within HBRA
• Feral cat (Felis catus)
• Opossum (Didelphis virginiana)
• Bull frogs (Rana catesbeiana)
• Nutria (Myocastor coypus)
• Fox squirrel (Sciurus niger)
• Common Starling (Sturnus vulgaris)
• (Rio Grande) turkey (Meleagris gallopavo intermedia)
• Red-eared Slider (Trachemys scripta elegans)
• Common Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina)

Non-Native Animals Known in Willamette Valley but not documented within HBRA
• Feral Swine (Sus scrofa)
• Eastern Cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus)
• Red Swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkia)
• Ringed Crayfish (Orconectes neglectus)
• Chinese and Japanese Mystery Snails (Cipangopaludina chinensis and Cipangopaludina japonica)

• Hiebert, R.D. and J. Stubbendieck, 1993. Handbook for Ranking Exotic Plants for Management
and Control. U.S. National Park Service, Natural Resources Report NPS/NRMWRO/NRR-93/08.
• Oregon Department of Agriculture. Oregon Noxious Weed Profiles (web site reference).
www.oregon.gov/oda/programs/weeds/oregonnoxiousweeds/pages/aboutoregonweeds.aspx
• Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Invasive species, stop their spread (web site reference).
www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/invasive_species.asp
• US Department of Agriculture. Introduced, Invasive, and Noxious Plants (web site reference).
www.plants.usda.gov/java/noxiousDriver
• US Environmental Protection Agency. Introduction to Integrated Pest Management (web site
reference). www.epa.gov/managing-pests-schools/introduction-integrated-pest-management


Chapter 10: Stewardship Projects to Protect and
Enhance Conservation Targets

This chapter presents recommendations for habitat projects to improve the viability of the conservation
targets and to enhance visitor experience at HBRA. These projects are presented in a table organized by
Habitat Management Plan Goals.

The table presents the period of project implementation by assigning it one of three five-year periods in
the next fifteen years (i.e., 0-5 years, 5 to 10 years, or 10 to 15 years). In some cases, projects span
multiple periods or the entire fifteen-year arc of plan implementation. The Habitat Advisory Team will
meet periodically to meet review and evaluate progress and will make recommendations to adjust the
timeline accordingly.

Land management is normally site specific, for that reason the implementation schedule for intensive
investments to advance restoration of Focal Conservation Target Habitats as well as other Significant
Habitats corresponds with Management Units within Each Stewardship Zone with exception to those
Stewardship Zones which are not subdivided into Management Units. Management Unit specific
projections of Historic Vegetation, the Existing Condition Circa 2008, and the Desired Future Condition
Circa 2035 are presented in Appendix E. In addition, Appendix E includes a summary of stewardship
activities completed 1998 – 2018 within each Management Unit as well as a set of prescriptions forecast
for implementation within the Management Unit.

As noted in Chapter 6, funding for project implementation may not be in hand for the fifteen-year
horizon of this plan. However, this park-wide habitat management plan will help Lane County or its
partners secure grants and other funding, since the plan provides a clear "road map," which is key to
marshaling the resources and partnerships necessary to accomplish this collective vision.

Figure 10-1: Implementation Schedule








Chapter 11: Best Management Practices and
Stewardship Tool Box
11.1 Use of the Best Management Practices

The intent of this chapter is to document and describe the protocols and procedures that will be
incorporated into implementation of ongoing stewardship projects, to ensure that stewardship actions
are conducted in a safe and effective manner, and do not create unacceptable harm to other
conservation targets. To a considerable extent the Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) listed below
capture the expertise and practices that have been developed as a part of ongoing stewardship actions
since the park was established.

Lane County managers and operational staff, as well as staff from partner agencies, such as Friends of
Buford Park & Mt. Pisgah, Mount Pisgah Arboretum, and Lane County Sheriff’s Posse (“Staff”) are
expected to become familiar with this section of the HBRA Habitat Management Plan. Staff will review
this section when planning and implementing projects so that actions are consistent with the avoidance
and minimization measures, as well as the BMPs. Whenever an organization that is approved to work
within HBRA initiates a project, it is the responsibility of that organization to ensure that it complies with
any and all local, state, and federal regulatory and permitting requirements associated with the project.

The purpose of this Habitat Management Plan is for Lane County Parks and its partners to identify goals,
strategies, and projects to effectively conserve a diversity of native habitats and species throughout
HBRA, while effectively meeting demand for recreational use of the park. It should be noted that Mount
Pisgah Arboretum holds a long-term lease on 209 acres within HBRA and has developed its own policies
and practices. There is no intention on the part of Lane County or its partners to reduce the Arboretum’s
current level of autonomy in the management of its leased area. The Arboretum policies and practices
are generally compatible with those described in this chapter, but may vary in some cases to meet the
specific needs of its mission and programs.

11.2 Professional Judgment

Within this section, words and phrases such as “where feasible”, “where appropriate”, and “where
practicable” are used in conjunction with some minimization and avoidance measures, BMPs, and
techniques. These phrases, which allow some exercise of professional judgment by Staff, are not to be
used for convenience or ease of operation. Rather, these words are included to depict the unique nature
of habitat management at the HBRA, which may be either scheduled, dependent on site conditions, or
responsive to unexpected events (such as wildfire, windstorm, flood, etc.).

Projects or other treatments will be planned and implemented in selected locations based on an analysis
of conditions and needs. Funds are limited, and the intention is to treat areas where the benefits are
greatest, or the risk of negative impacts is greatest if action is not taken.


11.3 Habitat Advisory Team (HAT)
Lane County Parks Manager shall create and seek advice from a Habitat Advisory Team (HAT). The HAT
will be composed of representatives from Lane County Parks (Park’s Manager, Parks Supervisor, Natural
Areas Coordinator), Friends of Buford Park & Mt. Pisgah, Mount Pisgah Arboretum, Sheriff’s Posse, and
The Nature Conservancy. The HAT may also include other stakeholders, such as Oregon Dept. of
Forestry, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Bonneville Power Administration, as appropriate. The HAT
will meet at least annually to review implementation of the Habitat Management Plan and recommend
changes for plan improvement. The HAT will annually assess previous project outcomes, report on
projects planned for the upcoming year, and discuss future project priorities.

11.4 Training
Understanding and correctly implementing BMPs for maintenance and stewardship activities is the
responsibility of every employee and anyone who supervises volunteers from each organization
approved and authorized to work within the HBRA. Stakeholders may collaborate on trainings where
appropriate, or when more appropriate, implement training opportunities individually.
Examples of training opportunities include:
• Stewardship Academy: For new employees and volunteers, includes presentation of the Habitat
Management plan, associated environmental issues, and the HBRA Master Plan
• Herbicide applicator trainings
• Wildland fire suppression and management training
• Participation in professional symposiums and conferences
• Continuing education classes
• New product trials and equipment demonstrations
• Rivers to Ridges Field Operations Group project tours and site visits
• HBRA quarterly meetings with special interest groups
• Team meetings

11.5 Documentation and Reporting

Stewardship staff involved with plan implementation will brief the Habitat Advisory Team (HAT) about
plan-related activities that occurred during the year prior to each annual meeting. HAT members will
review and discuss this information as the basis for developing any possible recommendations for
changes to the plan. Elements that may be addressed during this review include:
• Summary of routine work accomplished throughout the year.
• Challenges, controversies, and successes affecting implementation of the BMPs.
• Results of research and any recommendations for modifications to BMPs.
• Summary of Stewardship Project accomplishments.
• Summary of storm damage or accidental incidents such as fire, including unanticipated
ecological damage and associated outcomes.
• A summary of projects that could not use the BMPs and actions taken to inform future revisions
of this section of the Habitat Management Plan.

11.6 Best Management Practices by Category
11.6.1 Trails (TR)

In General
TR-1. When maintaining trails, if feasible, prioritize activities during the weekday (M-Th: 9-3pm and
Friday 10-2pm) when tasks have the potential for causing adverse impacts to park patrons
during periods of peak use.
TR-2. Post temporary precautionary signage to advise park patrons as they are approaching hazard(s).

When managing vegetation adjacent to trails:
TR-3. Remove vegetation encumbering trail corridors.
a. Prune and remove limbs from shrubs, small trees, and trees in ways that minimize visible
evidence, such as flush cuts.
TR-4. Manage and remove invasive vegetation.
b. Incorporate recent EDRR reports for each trail segment when implementing vegetation
management actions.
TR-5. Remove undesirable woody vegetation (such as blackberry and poison oak) growing adjacent to
the trail edge.
• Mechanically or chemically manage vegetation growing adjacent to (typically within 3’) the
trail edge.
o Schedule treatments for a time of year that will minimize impacts to native herbaceous
species, such as during the late summer – fall.
o Identify and treat any invasive herbaceous species that occur under cover of the
targeted vegetation.
o Post signage and pertinent information to inform trail users about the application.
o When practical, close the trail segment concurrent with the application and for a period
following the completion of the application consistent with guidelines defined on the
product label.
TR-6. If planning (non-routine) maintenance or trail improvements that will alter vegetation growing
adjacent to the trail (new switch backs, trail alignment, overlooks, etc.) coordinate with
appropriate experts to conduct surveys for sensitive species in selecting alignments, salvage
and/or transplant native plant materials, and take other precautionary actions to minimize
impacts.


Maintain trail bed
TR-7. When removing branches and/or organic debris (leaf litter, twigs and branches, etc.) from trail
segments,
• Cut and scatter branches in forest understory at least 3’ from trail, if quantity of material is
small, or
• Place branches in small piles at least 15’ from the edge of the trail, or
• Scatter debris across a larger area, if quantity of material is large.
• Avoid placing debris and branches within prairie, savanna, and oak woodland habitats if at
all possible. Such debris should be hauled off site, or can be placed in nearby conifer forest
habitat instead.
TR-8. When preventing vegetation from establishing or growing up within the trail bed.
• Apply wood chips where feasible to create a vegetation-free trail surface
• Mow trails occasionally during the mowing season where appropriate.
• Utilize thermal treatments in the winter, spring, and fall to eliminate vegetation, particularly
annual seedlings.
• If necessary and appropriate, utilize chemical treatments to eliminate persistent perennial
vegetation attempting to colonize the trail bed.
TR-9. When agitating and re-compacting trail surfaces to maintain an even trail surface.
a. Source gravel products from trustworthy vendors who can guarantee that the gravel is
“weed free.”

Management of hazard trees or fallen trees
TR-10. Contact Lane County Parks Division to report trees that may pose a potential threat to public
safety. Contact Number: (541) 682-2000. Following a storm event causing tree damage, Lane
County Parks Division will determine whether to implement a temporary park closure, and will
coordinate with stakeholders to identify roles and responsibilities for cleanup implementation
within the park. Providing safe access to the public will be the first priority in storm response
efforts.
TR-11. When County operations employees, park partners, and/or contractors remove hazard trees:
• Prior to project work, photo-document and describe any potential tree hazard risks. This will aid
in minimizing safety risks and provide for hazard abatement prior to the start of any project.
Photo documentation is also desirable to accompany FEMA reimbursement requests for clean-
up costs after federally declared disaster storm events.
• Consult with appropriate experts to determine if sensitive animal or plant species are known to
occur in proximity to the hazard tree, and if so, take action to minimize collateral impacts to
these natural resources.
• Priority should be given to reducing the potential hazard by means of hazard mitigation and
assessment. Not all tree hazards require removal and can be eliminated or reduced through

pruning, crown cleaning and other approved arboricultural practices. These methods should be
evaluated prior to the removal of an assessed hazard tree.
• For those trees warranted for removal because of hazard risk, if feasible leave as much
“standing snag habitat” while insuring no further hazard remains at the site. This can be done by
designing snags so that if they were to fall, they would not hit a trail, road, or other public
gathering place.
• When practicable, manage (using manual, mechanical or chemical treatments) patches of
blackberry or other invasive woody species prior to placement of removed hazard tree logs or
debris.
• When feasible, place large woody debris and/or logs adjacent to trails, or other areas that would
provide for suitable habitat or benefit to the natural area. Consult with appropriate staff to
insure the best use of the downed wood prior to completion.
• When feasible, utilize removed portions of the hazard tree to obstruct unauthorized trails from
within a reasonable proximity of the removal. Outside the Arboretum, this should require the
authorization of appropriate County staff prior to implementation.

TR-12. Following significant storm events (including high winds, excessive rain, lightning strikes) patrol
high use trail corridors to identify and remove trees or branches that obstruct the trail corridor.

11.6.2 Stormwater Management

In General
TR-13. Promote trail design that maintains storm water sheet flow across the trail bed and/or
minimizes hydrologic changes to adjacent wetland habitats when and where appropriate.
Example methods for maintaining sheet flow include grading and/or utilization of a French drain
structure to re-establish sheet flow in areas where storm water is being concentrated.
TR-14. If necessary to allow a desired trail alignment, incorporate boardwalks or similar infrastructure
in trail design in areas where site hydrology may otherwise be affected by trail construction.
TR-15. If planning (non-routine) maintenance or trail improvements that will alter the trail bed (new
switch backs, trail alignment, overlooks, etc.) or change the existing drainage (new rolling dip,
rolling grade, culvert) coordinate with appropriate experts to determine if formal design,
permits, etc. are required to modify existing storm water management facilities.
TR-16. Implement seasonal closure of trail segments where trails traverse areas of sensitive habitat,
hydrology, or other biological, ecological, or geological features of concern.
TR-17. Upon discovery of trail corridor damage caused by erosion or storm events, contact the Lane
County Parks Division (or Mount Pisgah Arboretum staff for trails located inside the Arboretum
lease area) to report the problem and to coordinate trail abatement measures.


11.6.3 Parking Areas and Access Roads (PR)
When County operations employees, park partners, volunteers, and/or contractors carry out
management of parking areas and access roads:
In General
PR-1. Utilize Lane County’s Routine Road Maintenance Best Management Practices (RRM BMP) Guide.
PR-2. Manage vegetation within parking areas (and within 100 yards along roadsides on the approach
to parking areas) to enhance and maintain visibility, to deter theft, and protect the safety of
park patrons.
PR-3. Manage refuse to minimize impact on wildlife where refuse facilities are provided.
• Collect and remove refuse at a regular frequency.
• Use refuse containers that are sealed and designed in a manner to prevent access to
wildlife.
PR-4. Manage herbaceous vegetation by mowing annually (ideally in late June or early July) near
parking areas and along roadsides to reduce fuels that could carry and spread wildfire.
PR-5. Manage problematic vegetation, such as poison oak, near parking areas to protect park patrons.
PR-6. When re-vegetating disturbed soils, utilize native seed from the Mount Pisgah provenance (such
as that produced through Friends' nursery program) and/or other native seed that has an
identified collection source located within 20 miles of the park.
11.6.4 Utility Corridors (BPA powerlines, natural gas lines, EPUD powerlines) (UC)
For BPA right of way, please refer to “Transmission System Vegetation Management Program Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), May 2000” and the Memorandum of Understanding between
BPA and ‘Pisgah Partners’.
When utility company employees and/or contractors, County operations employees, park partners,
and/or contractors carry out management within utility corridors:
In General
UC-1. Prioritize maintenance activities during the weekday (M-F: 9-3pm) to minimize adverse impacts
to park patrons during periods of peak (weekly) use.
UC-2. Post temporary precautionary signage to advise park patrons as they are approaching hazard(s).
Season
UC-3. Prioritize timing of vegetation management activities for seasons that minimize collateral
impacts or risks. To the extent possible, mowing should be timed to avoid impacts to nesting
songbirds, reptiles, and reproduction of native herbaceous plants. Chemical treatments should
be timed to avoid impacts to pollinators, minimize impacts to actively growing native
herbaceous species, and minimize seed set of invasive plants. Thermal treatments should be
timed to avoid wildfire risk.
Access
UC-4. Utilize the existing trail system to access easements. Minimize off-trail travel including
pedestrian and vehicle traffic.

Vegetation Management
UC-5. Coordinate with utilities to seek advance notice of planned work.
UC-6. Minimize and abate disturbance to soil or vegetation.
UC-7. When re-vegetating disturbed soils, utilize native seed from the Mount Pisgah provenance (such
as produced through Friends nursery program) and/or other native seed that has an identified
collection source located within 30 miles of the park.

11.6.5 Ecological Tree Removal (for habitat restoration purposes) (ER)

Recommended guidelines and BMPs for ecological tree removal activities are presented for reference
only. All potential tree removal activities within HBRA are evaluated on a project-by-project basis by
Lane County, and the recommendations identified below are not intended to limit the discretion of Lane
County Park Manager, County Administrator, or Board of County Commissioners when making policy
decisions. Tree removal and related actions within the Mount Pisgah Arboretum’s lease area will be
governed by the lease and associated agreements based on the lease intent. The recommendations
under Item 3 are presented in a prioritized sequence. If the first recommendation is not available, or is
fully met with additional material remaining, then the next recommendation in the list is to be
considered.

ER-1. All trees proposed for removal as part of a County-approved project (outside the Arboretum)
will be appropriately marked to assist Lane County staff field inspections prior to any work
activities.

ER-2. Utilize appropriate erosion control BMPs that prohibit the movement of disturbed soils from the
identified work area

ER-3. Recommendations for the disposition of trees determined to have commercial value.
a. Utilize logs for restoration and habitat conservation purposes or park facility improvements:
i. within the boundaries of the restoration project from which they are cut, or
ii. on another restoration project within HBRA.
iii. Mill logs on site with a portable mill to produce materials for fences, benches, siding,
and other park facilities.
b. Use proceeds from the sale of the merchantable material to offset costs directly related to
the tree-removal activities on the restoration project from which the trees are cut.
c. If funds remain after direct tree removal costs are paid, use proceeds to support habitat and
visitor infrastructure improvement projects within HBRA.


11.7 HBRA Stewardship Zones
S-1 Protect the Best Habitats.
i. In prairie and oak habitats, identify areas with a
1. high richness of high fidelity native herbaceous plant species.
2. Abundance of features associated with native reptiles such as nesting areas, basking
areas, or hibernacula
3. Sites with unique or diverse examples of the native invertebrate fauna
ii. In riparian and conifer forest habitats, identify areas with
1. a high richness or cover of spring wildflowers, or
2. a high density of nesting neotropical migrant songbirds.
iii. Minimize adverse impacts to populations of plant and animal species in high quality
habitats.
1. Follow appropriate BMPs for restoration and/or maintenance activities in these areas.
2. Utilize appropriate site preparation activities at the onset of large scale enhancement
and restoration projects.
3. When performing ecological burns, treat no more than half of the target areas in a
single year to allow invertebrates and other inhabitants in the untreated portion to
complete their life cycles.

S-2 Minimize soil disturbance and compaction.
i. When feasible, implement soil-disturbing restoration, construction or maintenance activities
when soils are dry.
ii. Minimize the creation of new maintenance corridors (subject to repetitive use) into or
through a management unit.

S-3 Minimize hydrological disturbance.
i. When feasible, implement soil-disturbing restoration, construction or maintenance activities
when soils are dry.
ii. Minimize the creation of new maintenance corridors into or through a management unit,
particularly corridors that follow the fall line.

S-4 Minimize disturbance of native vegetation.
i. When feasible, implement vegetation disturbing activities between July 15 (after seed set
and bird nesting) and November 15.
ii. Minimize the creation of new maintenance corridors into or through a management unit.

iii. Where necessary, locate maintenance corridors utilized by mechanized equipment in areas
already invaded by non-native species such as blackberry and Scotch broom, so as to avoid
impacting prairie habitats.

S-5 Minimize adverse impacts on native animal species, including nesting birds.
i. When feasible, avoid noise and vegetation disturbance from March 15 – July 15, except
where it can be demonstrated that adverse impacts will be minimal.
ii. When feasible, plan significant activities according to seasonal sensitivity of species of
interest.
iii. Protect and enhance invertebrate species
1. When feasible, time use of herbicides to minimize adverse impacts on pollinators and
other invertebrates.
2. When reintroducing native plants, provide many individuals of each species.
3. Provide native plants that flower throughout the growing season and provide pollen or
nectar for all types of pollinators.
4. During maintenance of restored habitats, use management techniques that do not
affect an entire habitat patch in the same year.
5. Provide different sizes of standing and down wood (snags and logs).
6. Provide small areas of bare soil for ground nesting bees.

S-6 Minimize transport of invasive plant species.
i. Identify how invasive species are being introduced to the Park.
ii. Identify actions to reduce introduction, including both on-site and off-site movement.
iii. Wash soil, seeds, and vegetative debris from all classes of equipment, as well as from
individual operators or technicians when entering or leaving any portion of the site where
invasive species are present.

S-7 Minimize adverse impacts of stewardship activities on park patrons.
i. Prioritize stewardship activities in high use areas to non-peak times, such as M-F, 7 am – 5
pm.
ii. Post temporary precautionary signs to advise park patrons of potential hazards associated
with stewardship activities.
iii. Remove temporary signage as promptly as safety considerations will permit

S-8 Avoid impacts to cultural resources.
i. plan projects so as to avoid impacting cultural resources documented in the 1994 HBRA
Master Plan or subsequent surveys.

ii. Incorporate an appropriate level of cultural resource monitoring to any stewardship project
that has potential to impact cultural resources through soil disturbance (excavation,
tilling/disking, etc.).

11.8 Stewardship Toolbox

11.8.1 Stewardship, Site Preparation and Invasive Management Methods
The following section details stewardship methods that can be implemented to maintain conservation
targets, to manage invasive vegetation and prepare project areas for enhancement or restoration
actions, such as floodplain channel excavation, ecological burns, etc.
When feasible, assign a botanist or lead steward to track progress and effectiveness of site preparation
activities and evaluate methods of the Stewardship Tool Box to manage populations of invasive plants
occurring on a micro-site scale. Working at this scale, being flexible, and employing a combination of site
preparation and methods can help ensure project success.
11.8.2 Equipment Cleaning Guidelines

All equipment utilized (by staff, contractors, or volunteers) during implementation of site stewardship
must be thoroughly cleaned (preferably with compressed air and/or a pressure washer) prior to site
entry to remove all dirt and debris to reduce the possibility of introduction of invasive plants not
currently existing within the project area. If cleaning occurs within the HBRA, the area in which the
cleaning takes place should be noted or mapped so it can be monitored and checked for any future
weed growth.
11.8.3 Invasive Plant Management Methods

1) Bradley Method. In areas of high quality habitat (where native species cover is relatively high
with respect to total cover), small patches of invasive species are removed manually. The area
relieved of invasive vegetation is not replanted; rather the area is left for natural colonization by
adjacent native plants. The treated area is periodically re-visited by work groups who remove
any and all seedlings and/or root sprouts of undesirable species. In time the area is colonized by
native species. In some circumstances plants (either salvaged from the project area or grown by
local native plant nurseries) may be planted in these areas when a particular habit, character, or
presence not currently represented within the area is desired. This method may also be applied
in habitats adjacent to a project site to support the larger project area and prevent further
spread.
2) Repetitive mowing. In areas where noxious woody perennial species cover is both dominant
and high (relative cover greater than 80 percent, the area is mowed periodically with a tractor
mounted mower or with a walk-behind rotary mower (depending on the size of the area to be
treated). Treatments may be applied at any time in the year but it is recommended that
treatments occur between May-November to avoid the potential for soil disturbance and
compaction that may result during the rainy season. In some sites with well drained soils, it may
be possible to implement mowing in early spring before native plants emerge. In those areas
where relative cover by native species is at least 10-20 percent with respect to total cover
(depending upon native species composition), the first treatment should not be applied until the
native plants have set seed. It is expected that an area may be treated 2-7 times before the

prescription may be considered successful. Following several cycles of mowing, a brush rake
may be used to dislodge root crowns and root masses from the treatment area. If it is
determined that the treatment will adversely affect roots of desirable vegetation, root crowns
of invasive woody plants (primarily Armenian blackberry) should be removed manually. If a
brush rake is used, the ground is then dressed/rolled following disturbance. The area should be
seeded with a mix of herbaceous native annual pioneer species intrinsic to the particular
ecotype that will develop as the noxious species are managed. Native hay may be broadcast
over the disturbed soil as well to minimize soil erosion. Following the final treatment, desirable
native perennial shrubs and trees will be planted in accordance with the Future Conditions Plan
for the specific area.
3) Removal of seed heads. In some cases, manual or mechanical removal of seed heads may be an
important interim measure, if more permanent treatments methods are not feasibly given
available resources. This will at least prevent an increase in the quantity of non-native seed
being added to the seed bank.
4) Repetitive shallow disking, tilling and irrigation. Within areas of non-native pasture grasses and
forbs, where native species are absent, a field is mowed through the growing season. In early
summer the field may be chemically treated with either a gator-mounted boom sprayer or brush
monitor. A few weeks later the field is shallowly disked and tilled several times. The field may be
irrigated following tillage. Tillage is repeated after a week or ten days following germination
from the seed bank. The treatment is repeated until germination is sparse across the field. After
tilling is complete, the restoration area should be seeded heavily with an aggressive native seed
mix. Spot herbicide treatment (ideally using selective herbicides), followed by broadcast
seeding, may be needed within some parts of the restoration area.
5) Solarization. In areas where invasive herbaceous species cover is both dominant and high, and
high-fidelity native prairie species are absent, Solarization may be appropriate. The area is first
mowed short and then tilled with either a tractor-mounted roterra device or with a rototiller.
The soil should be well-churned when tilling is complete. Larger areas may be graded for
desirable micro-topography following tilling. The area of treatment is then covered with a 4-
year/6 mil clear plastic. The plastic edge should be sealed to retain heat, and anchored to ensure
that it is not adversely affected by wind. The plastic is left in place for 8-12 weeks. It is critical
that ambient air temperatures are at least 90°F for a period of not less than three days during
the time of treatment. This prescription is applied in the summer months. It is recommended
that plastic be laid no later than the third week of June. Plastic should be removed prior to the
return of regular fall precipitation. Following treatment, a native seed mix is broadcast within
the footprint. Herbaceous plugs and woody plants may be planted as well.
6) Smothering. Summer-Fall application: In small areas (less than 100 sq. ft.) within a
prairie/meadow or forested ecotype where invasive species cover is both dominant and high
(greater than 60 percent) with respect to total cover, the area is mowed very short and then
covered with heavy black nursery fabric or non-woven road fabric. The fabric should be secured
in place with landscape staples. The fabric is then removed in the fall of the following year
(fabric may be left in place for multiple years). The area is then planted with plugs, salvaged
plant materials and/or broadcast with a mix of native seed.
7) Herbicide Application. Those areas dominated by habitat-altering, invasive vegetation for which
other means of control have not been successful may be treated with chemical herbicides.
Herbicide will be applied by licensed applicators. Applicators will strictly follow the rules and
regulations as directed on the label. Furthermore, selection of herbicide will closely follow those

products approved under the biological opinion developed for Bonneville Power Administration
by the federal National Marine Fisheries Service. Herbicide may be applied by wiper applicator,
brush, backpack spray, motorized hand gun, and motorized boom spray applicator.
8) Infrared (propane) burner. In areas where annual or perennial herbaceous species cover is both
dominant and high (greater than 60 percent) with respect to total cover, the area is flamed with
an infrared (propane) burner. The treatment is applied to wilt the invasive vegetation, not
consume it. Treatments are applied when fire danger is low and when plant growth or seed
production will be impacted. Subsequently, the area should be seeded with a mix of herbaceous
native pioneer species associated with the particular habitat that will develop as the invasive
species are reduced. In addition, desirable native perennial shrubs and trees will be planted in
accordance with planting plan for the specific area.
9) Biological Control. Biocontrol agents destroy plant tissues and cause stress to the weeds,
making them less competitive against desirable flora. It may take 10-20 years for a biocontrol
project to successfully manage a weed at the regional scale. Managers should work with the
Oregon Department of Agriculture to collect and redistribute biocontrol agents to other infested
areas throughout the park. Treatment areas are to be monitored to ensure populations of
biological control agents remain at optimal levels to control select species of invasive vegetation
within the HBRA and the greater Mount Pisgah Area. Biological control agents are not to be used
if they have been determined to create adverse effects to native (and endemic) species related
to the target of control.
10) Bio Char. Where practical instead of burning piles of brush, convert woody debris generated
through vegetation management prescriptions to reverse encroachment by native plants or
invasion by non-native plants into bio char. Bio char is charcoal produced from plant matter and
stored in the soil as a means of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

• Bonneville Power Administration. 2000. Transmission System Vegetation Management Program
Final Environmental Impact Statement. Chapter II: The Methods.
• Bradley, J. 1991. Bringing Back the Bush: The Bradley Method of Bush Regeneration. Ure Smith
Press, Willoughby, Australia


Chapter 12: Monitoring and Adaptive Management
12.1 What is Adaptive Management?

Adaptive management is an approach that incorporates monitoring of past management into the
planning of subsequent management actions, and systematically tests assumptions in order to learn and
adapt. First, a management objective is identified. Next, a best management option is selected and
stewardship actions are implemented. Stewardship results are monitored and compared with
expectations so that subsequent management actions can be adjusted after considering insights gained
and lessons learned from previous management actions. The following flow chart image suggests the
cycle of adaptive management.

Figure 12-1: Adaptive Management Diagram
Monitoring within HBRA should focus on two basic questions:

1. Strategy effectiveness - Are the conservation actions being taken within HBRA achieving their
desired results?
2. Status assessments - What is the status and what are the trends of conservation targets within
HBRA?
More specifically, monitoring tasks should be linked to the plan objectives, conservation targets, key
ecological attributes, and threats outlined in this plan. Implementation of the HBRA Habitat
Management Plan will incorporate the practice of adaptive management to ensure that lessons learned
improve the results of future management.

Following approval of the HBRA Habitat Management Plan, a comprehensive monitoring plan will be
developed by Lane County Parks Division and partners, which will identify a realistic set of monitoring
tasks and time frames, based on the monitoring categories described below, to provide information to
guide adaptive management. At five year intervals, a review of habitat management accomplishments

and conservation target status will be completed, to provide direction for planning of subsequent
management actions.

In addition, each project proposal approved by Lane County Parks for implementation of stewardship
activities will include both a monitoring component and a maintenance component, to describe the
process for identifying and implementing follow-up stewardship tasks as identified through monitoring
and adaptive management.

12.2 Funding for Monitoring

Funds for the monitoring activities specified in this chapter are not secured. However, monitoring of
habitat conditions has been ongoing since at least the 1980s by volunteers. For example, botanists
mobilized by Friends have developed a database of over 500 plant species identified and located in the
park, and have conducted annual monitoring of the Bradshaw’s lomatium population nearly every year
since 1993. Amateur ornithologists have documented over 100 bird species using the park. In more
recent years, as grants have been secured for habitat improvement, modest funding for monitoring,
combined with volunteer labor has enabled monitoring of fish, herptiles, birds and hydrology along the
Coast Fork Willamette, as well as invasive removal in the park. With clear priorities and more effective
partnerships, limited funding for monitoring can be focused to better inform future management.

12.3 Monitoring Conservation Targets

Documenting the status and trends of individual focal conservation targets is an important benchmark
for determining whether the goals of the plan are being met. Status of habitat types can be quantified
over time by mapping their extent from aerial photographs and other historic data. Condition of habitat
types can be most efficiently documented in a qualitative way by use of permanent photo points;
supplemented, where appropriate, by data from vegetation plots. Status and trend of species targets
requires some documentation of distribution and population size (preferably but not necessarily
annually), with a monitoring intensity sufficient to document change over time. For monitoring nested
targets, documenting presence/absence (ideally on a Management Unit basis) will be valuable
documentation. This need not be done annually, but if done by volunteers at three to five year intervals,
this would be sufficient.

12.4 Monitoring Key Ecological Attributes

The “Key Ecological Attributes” identified in Chapter 5, Figure 5.1, represent important factors for the
viability of the habitat types and species listed in this plan as focal and nested conservation targets.
Figure 5.1 lists specific indicators for each KEA, and monitoring should provide information, where
appropriate, sufficient to update indicator ratings (poor, fair, good, or very good) over time. The
necessary intensity of data collection varies for different indicators. For particular indicators that require
intensive data collection, it may only be appropriate to invest resources in collecting such data where
the level of treatments or management effort is correspondingly high. Visitor experience KEA’s will
guide monitoring for this target, but in addition, occasional visitor surveys could supplement other
monitoring and, if implemented consistently over time, may provide data on trends.


12.5 Monitoring Threats
Threats to conservation targets are identified in Chapter 5, Figure 5.2. The status of threats with an
overall threat rank of “High” or “Very High” should be done in a qualitative way on an annual basis. If
there is uncertainty as to whether threat abatement practices in place are adequate, a more intensive
assessment of the threat’s impacts may be warranted.

12.6 HBRA Species Inventory/Monitoring

Baseline species inventory provides important data related to viability and threats of conservation
targets within HBRA. Documenting the species of plants and animals present within HBRA, as well as
change over time, informs ongoing management planning and implementation. For some types of
organisms, species lists developed over the years are fairly complete, but for others only partial species
lists exist. Compiling existing species presence data and improving completeness, where feasible, should
be an ongoing endeavor. For nested species conservation targets, documenting locations of populations
with GIS should be a priority. For other species, documenting presence/absence by Stewardship Zone or
other appropriate sub-unit of the park will be beneficial. Introduced non-native species are a particular
category for which strategic tracking of distribution and abundance will benefit conservation
management.

12.7 Project Effectiveness Monitoring

Project effectiveness monitoring is likely to be a requirement of grant funding to support habitat
restoration work at HBRA. In a general sense, project effectiveness monitoring should help us determine
whether the conservation actions being taken within HBRA are achieving their desired results. More
specifically, project effectiveness monitoring tasks can be selected to provide useful information to feed
the adaptive management cycle described above, by improving the effectiveness, efficiency, quality, or
cost of restoration and management activities.


• Salafsky, N., R. Margoulis, and K. Redford. 2001. Adaptive Management: A Tool for Conservation
Practitioners. Biodiversity Support Program Publ. 112, Washington DC.

• The Nature Conservancy. 2016. Conservation by Design 2.0. Guidance Document. http://cmp-


Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan:
Appendix A: Glossary
HBRA Habitat Management Plan

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: Appendix A: Glossary

Stewardship and Conservation Planning Terms used within the Habitat
Management Plan

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT - A process originally developed to manage natural resources in large scale
ecosystems by formal or observational experimentation and systematic monitoring of the results. More
broadly, it is the incorporation of a formal learning process into conservation action. Specifically, it is the
integration of design, management, and monitoring to systematically test assumptions in order to learn
and adapt.

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES – In the context of ecological stewardship, a standard set of activities
that can be implemented in appropriate situations or locations, that provide desired habitat benefits
and at the same time minimize possible negative impacts to habitats.

BRADLEY METHOD - A habitat restoration technique that involves focused, small scale manual removal
of invasive plant species in a way that allows regeneration by native species to naturally fill the bare
gaps left after invasives are removed. This method is particularly applicable to higher quality habitats
where invasive plant species are still a minor component of the vegetation, or at the boundaries
between high quality habitats and denser patches of invasives.

CONSERVATION TARGET – An element of biodiversity or related habitat management focus.
Conservation Targets typically include plant and animal species, ecological communities, and ecological
systems. For the purposes of this plan, “Visitor Experience” as it relates to habitat management has also
been identified as a conservation target.

ECOLOGICAL BURNING - Prescribed burning to achieve one or more ecological goals – such as reducing
woody plant invasion of prairies, enhancing flowering and reproduction of native prairie plants, or
reducing the abundance of non-native herbaceous plant species.

FIRST ORDER STREAM – a seasonal or perennial stream that has no flowing tributaries. First, second, and
third order streams are considered to be headwater streams.

FOCAL CONSERVATION TARGET – A limited subset of species, communities, and ecological systems that
are chosen to represent the full array of biodiversity and habitat management priorities found in a
project area. They are the basis for setting goals, carrying out conservation actions, and measuring
conservation effectiveness. Conservation of the focal targets is intended to ensure the conservation of
all native biodiversity within functional landscapes.

FIDELITY – refers to an estimate of the proportion of a native plant species’ occurrences in prairie or oak
habitats at the time of Euroamerican settlement. High fidelity species would have been largely
restricted to prairie and oak habitats at the time of settlement. Moderate fidelity species may have
occurred with equal frequency in prairie/oak and non-prairie/oak habitats. Low fidelity species would
have also been widely distributed in a range of conifer forest, wetland, riparian forest, or other non-
prairie/oak habitats.

FIRE RETURN INTERVAL – For prescribed burning and other fire management strategies, Fire Return
Interval is a measure of fire frequency based on a number of fires per unit of time. Median fire return

interval provides information on the average number of years between fires. However, this is just an
average, and time spans between burns may be more or less than the average.

FLASH GRAZING – A livestock grazing practice that involves short term use of a high concentration of
livestock, often applied in a stewardship setting to manage non-native plant species or other
undesirable vegetation.

FORB – An annual or perennial herbaceous plant (lacking woody stems) that is not a member grass,
rush, or sedge plant families; these are typically recognized as wildflowers

GRAMINOID- An annual or perennial herbaceous plant (lacking woody stems) that is a member of the
grass, rush, or sedge plant families

HABITAT ENHANCEMENT-refers to actions taken to increase the ecological function of an area of
habitat; typically used in cases where the habitat type is not converted, or fundamental ecological
processes are not altered, but other actions are taken to improve habitat quality.

HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN – A document that identifies habitat conservation goals and objectives,
providing a context for prioritizing on-the-ground restoration and enhancement projects over a defined
period of time. A Habitat Management Plan should also identify ways to measure success through
monitoring, and adapt and learn over time through analysis of monitoring results.

HABITAT RESTORATION – refers to management actions taken to return an area of habitat to a condition
that existed previously. The term may be applied to conversion of a habitat type to one that existed
previously, or the return of a fundamental ecological process. Our best assessment of the condition or
processes that were in place at the time of Euroamerican settlement (roughly 1850) is commonly used
as the benchmark. However, the term can also be used to refer to a less specific time frame, and/or a
more general (such as ecoregional) spatial scale. This term is often used somewhat interchangeably with
“Habitat Enhancement” under a broader category of “Habitat Management”.

HABITAT TYPE- Generally synonymous with “cover type”. Habitat types are general classifications of
vegetation structure (tree density and height) and functional category (e.g., conifer vs. hardwood)
within relatively homogeneous stands.

HYDRIC SOIL – a soil that forms under conditions of water saturation, ponding, or flooding for a
sufficient length of the growing season to expose the root systems of plants to anaerobic conditions
(lacking oxygen)

INDICATOR – Measurable entities related to a specific information need (for example, the status of a key
ecological attribute, change in a threat, or progress towards an objective). A good indicator meets the
criteria of being: measurable, precise, consistent, and sensitive.

INVASIVE - In the context of this plan, invasive species are a subset of non-native species which colonize
and spread relatively rapidly, and significantly to greatly impact a native habitat or native species.

KEY ATTRIBUTE – Aspects of a conservation target's biology or ecology that, if missing or altered, would
lead to the loss of that target over time. They are aspects that sustain a target's viability or ecological
integrity

MAIN POPULATION – In the context of invasive species management, this term refers to a larger, long-
established patch of an invasive species that is in the process of expanding its occurrence within a site or
geographic area.

NON-NATIVE - Synonyms of non-native are exotic, introduced and alien. For the purposes of this plan, a
non-native species is defined as one that was not present at the HBRA ca. 1850, and does not have a
recent, local, shared evolutionary history with plant, animal, fungi or other species present. Non-native
species have arrived either incidentally with human activities (such as ballast or as “hitchhikers” with
other plant materials) or were introduced deliberately (such as escaped ornamentals). See “Native” and
“Invasive”.

NATIVE - “Indigenous” is a synonym. For the purposes of this plan, a native species is defined as one that
was present at the HBRA ca. 1850, and has a recent, local, shared evolutionary history with plant,
animal, fungi or other species present. This definition recognizes local ecological relationships that have
evolved over time as a basis for the definition, rather than recognizing a randomly chosen geographic
area as a basis as is typically done (e.g., “native to Oregon”).

NESTED CONSERVATION TARGET - Species, ecological communities, or ecological system targets whose
conservation needs are subsumed by one or more focal conservation targets. An example is a rare
species that is associated with a particular habitat type that has been selected as a focal target.

OUTLIER POPULATION - In the context of invasive species management, this term refers to a smaller,
more recently established satellite patch of an invasive species that is in the process of expanding its
occurrence within a site or geographic area.

PATCH - Distinct areas of a habitat type. Patches of similar habitats dominating the landscape form a
matrix, within which individual, smaller patches of other habitats exist. For example, a large area of
forest habitat may contain small patches of prairie intermixed. Size of habitat patches can be an
important factor in maintaining the viability of some conservation targets.

PUBLIC SAFETY – As a general term, “public safety” refers to the safety, security, and protection of
members of the public. For Parks, specifically, the term addresses providing a safe place for citizens and
visitors to enjoy outdoor recreation activities.

SECOND ORDER STREAM – a seasonal or perennial stream that is the product of two first order streams
joining together. First, second, and third order streams are considered to be headwater streams.

STAKEHOLDER – An individual, group, or institution who has a vested interest in the natural resources of
the project area and/or who potentially will be affected by project activities and have something to gain
or lose if conditions change or stay the same.

STEWARDSHIP – This term refers to an ethic of responsible habitat management. The term is a
metaphor that originates from the concept of a domestic steward, a household servant responsible for
managing the needs of a large household. Ecological Stewardship is a practice that was championed by
Aldo Leopold, as part of a “Land Ethic” that addressed modern humans’ relationship to the natural
world.


THREAT – An agent or factor that directly or indirectly degrades or reduces the health of a conservation
target. Threats can be divided into two types. These are direct threats, which are the agents that directly
degrade targets (for example, “woody plant invasion in prairie habitats”), and indirect threats, which are
the factors that are drivers of direct threats (for example, “lack of fire”). Indirect threats are often the
most effective entry point for conservation actions.

VIABILITY - The status or “health” of a population of a specific plant or animal species. More generally,
viability indicates the ability of a conservation target to withstand or recover from most natural or
anthropogenic disturbances and thus to persist for many generations or over long time periods.

VISION - A general summary of the desired state or ultimate condition of the project area or scope that a
project is working to achieve. A good vision statement meets the criteria of being visionary, relatively
general, brief, and measurable.

WILDLAND – A mosaic of habitats which are unmanaged, or managed for the integrity of native habitat
types, and are dominated by (or at least have a significant component of) native species.

WILDLIFE BLIND – A shelter that is used to camouflage or hide park visitors so they can observe wildlife
at close quarters.

WOLF TREE – A wolf tree is an unusually large coniferous tree (at least in the Pacific Northwest) which
was originally growing in an open environment. Wolf Trees tend to have an irregular crown, often with
the top broken off due to storm or lightning damage, and have large lower branches or branch stubs
Their large size an irregular form provide valuable habitat for wildlife. Typically wolf trees are 150 years
old or older. At HBRA wolf trees can be seen along Trial 1 just north of the summit of Mt. Pisgah.

Definitions of Focal Targets and Other Habitat Types

BALD – A plant community with little or no woody vegetation, where bedrock is at or close to the
surface, which consists of plant species adapted to very dry conditions during the summer.

FOREST - In general, a forest is considered as a dense stand of trees where the canopies of adjacent
trees generally touch, forming a more or less continuous canopy. However, older stands in particular
may support canopy gaps, so overall canopy cover ranges from 75% to 100%. General Land Office survey
notes from the 1850’s indicate that Willamette Valley forests generally supported at least 40, and up to
100, trees per acre at the time of Euroamerican settlement (tree density was partially a function of tree
size and age). Forest Types in HBRA include conifer or mixed conifer-hardwood forest, riparian and
floodplain forest, and forested wetland.

PRAIRIE – Grass and forb-dominated communities on non-hydric soils with few or no trees and few
shrubs. Trees (particularly Oregon white oak), if present, are very widely scattered; 5% canopy cover is
generally consider the upper limit of tree cover in prairie. General Land Office survey notes from the
1850’s indicate that Willamette Valley prairies supported fewer than 1 tree per acre at the time of
Euroamerican settlement. Upland prairies occur on well drained soils and seasonal wet prairies occur on
hydric soils. Upland prairie often occurs in a mosaic with savanna, and for the purposes of this plan the
two habitat types are combined as a single conservation target.


SAVANNA – Savanna has scattered open-grown trees (5% to 25% canopy cover) that are not so dense as
to break up the continuous layer of grasses and forbs. General Land Office survey notes from the 1850’s
indicate that Willamette Valley savannas supported 1 to 7 trees per acre at the time of Euroamerican
settlement . Oregon white is the dominant tree species of savanna but scattered conifers such as
ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and incense cedar may also be present.

SHRUBLAND – Naturally occurring shrublands are found where native shrub species such as buckbrush
(Ceanothus cuneatus) form dense stands, along with grasses, forbs, and scattered Oregon white oak
trees.

WATERWAY – Waterways within HBRA range from narrow riparian areas with seasonal flows (typically
running from late fall through late spring) that originate from the slopes of Mount Pisgah, to the channel
and banks of the Coast Fork of the Willamette River.

WOODLAND - In general, a woodland is considered to be a more or less continuous stand of trees where
the canopies do not touch, but rather provide continuous gaps. Overall canopy cover may range from
25% to 75%. General Land Office survey notes from the 1850’s suggest that Willamette Valley
woodlands supported 7 to 40 (100) trees per acre at the time of Euroamerican settlement. Some
researchers separate two woodland types, an open woodland (25% to 50% canopy cover), and a closed
woodland type (50% canopy cover to 75% canopy cover). Data from the General Land Office surveys
suggest that historic woodlands in the Willamette Valley were generally of the open woodland type. In
HBRA, oak woodland and associated community types (such as Oregon white oak-ponderosa pine
woodland) are a focal target for habitat management.


Appendix B: Bibliography

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: Appendix B: Bibliography

The following documents were used as technical references or background material during the
development and writing of the HBRA Habitat Management Plan.

American Bird Conservancy. 2016. New Study Heightens Concern for Oregon Vesper Sparrow.
https://abcbirds.org/new-study-heightens-concern-oregon-vesper-sparrow/

Bend Park & Recreation District. Dogs in Parks (web site reference).
www.bendparksandrec.org/parks__trails/dogs_in_parks/

Bonneville Power Administration. 2000. Transmission System Vegetation Management Program
Final Environmental Impact Statement. Chapter II: The Methods.

Boyd, R.T. 1999. Strategies of Indian burning in the Willamette Valley. In: Boyd, R.T. (Ed.), Indians,
Fire, and the Land in the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, pp. 94–138.

Bradley, J. 1991. Bringing Back the Bush: The Bradley Method of Bush Regeneration. Ure Smith
Press, Willoughby, Australia

Christy, J.A. and D. Vander Schaaf. Oregon Natural Heritage Program, natural (Pre-settlement)
vegetation classification. 1996.

Christy, J.A. and E.R Alverson. 2011. Historical Vegetation of the Willamette Valley, Oregon, circa
1850. Northw. Sci. 85(2):93-107.

Douglas, D. 1959. Journal Kept by David Douglas During His Travels in North America 1823-1827.
Antiquarian Press, New York.

Habeck, J.R. 1961. The original vegetation of the mid-Willamette Valley, Oregon. Northw. Sci. 35:65-
77.

Hiebert, R.D. and J. Stubbendieck, 1993. Handbook for Ranking Exotic Plants for Management and
Control. U.S. National Park Service, Natural Resources Report NPS/NRMWRO/NRR-93/08.

Hines, G. 1881. Wild Life in Oregon. Hurst, New York.

Hulse, D., S. Gregory, and J. Baker. 2002. Willamette River Basin Planning Atlas: Trajectories of
Environmental and Ecological Change. OSU Press, Corvallis.

IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing
Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.

Johannessen, C.L., W.A. Davenport, A. Millet, and S. McWilliams. 1971. The vegetation of the
Willamette Valley. Ann. Assoc. Amer. Geogr. 61:286-302.

Kagan, Jimmy and Steve Caicco. Manual of Oregon Actual Vegetation. 1992.

Kaye, T.N., K.L. Pendergrass, K. Finley, and J.B. Kauffman. 2001. The effect of fire on the population
viability of an endangered prairie plant. Ecol. App. 11(5):1366-1380.


Lane Council of Governments and regional partners. 2003. Rivers to Ridges: Eugene – Springfield
Regional Parks and Open Spaces Vision.

Lane Council of Governments and regional partners. 2010. Willamette River Open Space Vision and
Action Plan.

Lane County Parks and Open Space Division. 1981. Lane County Parks and Open Space Plan.

Lane County Parks Division and Cameron & McCarthy Landscape Architects. 1994. Howard Buford
Recreation Area Master Plan.

Lane County Parks Division. 1995. HBRA Trail Management Plan

Lane County Parks Division. 2002. South Meadow Management Plan

Morris, W. 1936. Forest fires in western Oregon and Washington. Oregon Hist. Quart. 35:313-339.

Newhouse, B. Native Wetland Plant Communities of Oregon. 1998.

Niemieck, S.S, G.R. Ahrens, S. Willits, and D.E. Hibbs. 1995. Hardwoods of the Pacific Northwest.
Research Contribution 8, Forest Research laboratory, Oregon State university, Corvallis, OR.

Nuckols, J.L, N.T. Rudd, E.R. Alverson, and G.A. Voss. 2011. Comparison of Burning and Mowing
Treatments in a Remnant Willamette Valley Wet Prairie, Oregon, 2001–2007. Northw. Sci.
85(2):303-316.

Oregon Department of Agriculture. Oregon Noxious Weed Profiles (web site reference).
www.oregon.gov/oda/programs/weeds/oregonnoxiousweeds/pages/aboutoregonweeds.aspx

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006 and 2016. Oregon Conservation Strategy. 9, 11, 234-
245.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Invasive species, stop their spread (web site reference).
www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/invasive_species.asp

Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goals &
Guidelines, Goal 15: Willamette River Greenway.
http://www.oregon.gov/lcd/docs/goals/goal15.pdf

Pendergrass, K. L., P. M. Miller, J. B. Kauffman, and T. N. Kaye. 1999. The role of prescribed burning
in maintenance of an endangered plant species, Lomatium bradshawii. Ecol. App. 9:1420–1429.

Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species of Oregon, Oregon Biodiversity Information Center
(2016). http://inr.oregonstate.edu/sites/inr.oregonstate.edu/files/2016-rte-book.pdf

Salafsky, N., R. Margoulis, and K. Redford. 2001. Adaptive Management: A Tool for Conservation Practitioners.
Biodiversity Support Program Publ. 112, Washington DC.

The Nature Conservancy. 2016. Conservation by Design 2.0. Guidance Document. http://cmp-

Titus, Jonathan. Native Wetland, Riparian, and Upland Ecotypes and their Biota – Willamette Valley,
Oregon. 1996.

Towle, J.C. 1982. Changing geography of the Willamette Valley woodlands. Oregon Hist. Quart.
83:66-87.

US Department of Agriculture, US Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region. Field Guide to Riparian
Plant Communities in Northwestern Oregon. 2005.

US Department of Agriculture. Introduced, Invasive, and Noxious Plants (web site reference).
www.plants.usda.gov/java/noxiousDriver

US Environmental Protection Agency. Introduction to Integrated Pest Management (web site
reference). www.epa.gov/managing-pests-schools/introduction-integrated-pest-management

US Fish and Wildlife Service. Recovery Plan for the Prairie Species of Western Oregon and
Southwestern Oregon. 2010

Walsh, M.K, J. R. Marlon, S. J. Goring, K. J. Brown & D. G. Gavin. 2015. A regional perspective on
Holocene fire-climate-human interactions in the Pacific Northwest of North America. Ann. Assoc.
Amer. Geogr. 105(6):1135-1157.

Walsh, M.K., C. Whitlock, and P.J. Bartlein. 2010. 1200 years of fire and vegetation history in the
Willamette Valley, Oregon and Washington, reconstructed using high-resolution macroscopic
charcoal and pollen analysis. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 297: 273-289.

Wilkes C. 1845. Narrative of the United States Expedition during the Years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841,
1842. Vol. 5, Lea and Blanchard, Philadelphia, Pa. 558 p.

Work, J. 1923. Journey from Fort Vancouver to the Umpqua River and return in 1834. Oregon Hist.
Quarterly 24:238-268.


Appendix C: Historic Vegetation and Land Use

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: Appendix C: Historic Information



Appendix D: Aerial Imagery Archive

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: Appendix D: Aerial Imagery Archive







Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan:
Appendix E: Park Wide and Management Unit
Specific Work Plans

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: Appendix E: Park Wide & Management Unit Specific Work Plan

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan - 02072018 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan - 02072018 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

View

of Mt Pisgah’s western Slope, April 1972

Prepared by Lane County Parks Division, Public Works Department

Lane County Parks Division

Friends of Buford Park & Mt. Pisgah

Mount Pisgah Arboretum

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 1

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 2

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 3

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 4

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 5

1.8 Chapter 1 References

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 6

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 7

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 8

2.5.1 HBRA Master Plan (1994)

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 9

2.5.3 South Meadow Management Plan (2002)

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 10

South Meadow Management Plan identifies three management goals:

2.5.4 Rivers to Ridges Open Space Study (2003)

2.5.5 Oregon Conservation Strategy (2006, updated in 2016)

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 11

2.5.6 Willamette River Open Space Vision (2010)

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 12

2.5.8 Other Plans and Assessments

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 13

2.6 Chapter 2 References

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 14

3.1.1 Why This Tool Was Selected

3.1.2 Other Conservation Action Plans developed in Western Oregon

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 15

3.2.1 Technical Advisory Group

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 16

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 17

3.3.1 Lane County Technical Review

3.3.2 Habitat Management Plan, Version 2

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 18

3.3.3 The Planning Process Ahead

3.4 Chapter 3 References

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 19

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 20

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 21

4.2.1 Upland prairie and savanna

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 22

4.2.2 Oregon Vesper Sparrow

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 23

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 24

4.2.5 Bradshaw’s lomatium

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 25

4.2.6 Buckbrush chaparral

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 26

4.2.7 Willamette riparian systems and associated floodplain

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 27

Winter Steelhead at HBRA (photo: Jim Reed)

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 28

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 29

Proposed HBRA Habitat Management Plan: February 7, 2018 Page 30

Extent Projected NET

Oak Savanna 363 716 353 97%

Buckbrush Chaparral 14 40 26 186%

Forested Wetland 42 30 -12 29%

Upland Conifer forest 275 376 101 37%